sec 


]\ 


\  see.)  ii?\ns.oMs  pc:^ mph  . 
LETTERS 


<C^ -.rj  -  rn//^ 


A:f 


^. 


REV.       PROFESSOR      STUART, 


sv-: 


COMPRISING 


REMARKS    ON  HIS   ESSAY   ON   SIN, 


PUBLISHED    IN    THE 


AMERICAN    BIBLICAL   REPOSITORY   FOR    APRIL   AND   JULY,   1839. 


BY  DANIEL.   DANA,  D.  D. 

MINISTEK      OF      THE      GOSPEL     IN     NEWEURYPORT. 


BOSTON  : 
PRINTED  BY  CROCKER  &  BREWSTER, 

47,  Washington  Street. 

Ib39. 


LETTER    I. 


Introduction. — The  point  in  debate   explicitly  stated. 
Plan  of  discussion. 


Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

I  have  perused  and  re-perused,  with  much  care,  your  Essay- 
on  Sin,  in  both  its  parts  ;  together  with  the  letter  of  explanation 
with  which  you  have  favored  me.  I  now  sit  down,  agreeably  to 
my  promise,  to  offer  some  comments.  To  this  task  I  come 
with  unaffected  reluctance.  To  find  myself  in  conflict  with  a 
beloved  and  honored  Professor  in  that  sacred  Seminary  with 
which,  from  the  first,  I  have  held  a  responsible  connection  ;  and 
this,  too,  on  points  which,  on  all  reflection,  I  cannot  but  view  as 
fundamental  and  vital,  gives  me  more  pain  than  I  can  possibly 
describe.  Nothing,  let  me  aver,  but  the  interests  of  sacred  truth, 
and  the  imperious  demands  of  apprehended  duty,  could  possibly 
reconcile  me  to  such  a  position. 

I  begin  by  repeating  my  thanks  for  your  kind  and  candid  re- 
ception of  my  first  letter,  plain  and  unceremonious  as  it  was. 
This  kindness  of  yours  combines  with  a  thousand  other  consid- 
erations, to  inculcate  a  similar  spirit  on  myself.  Indeed,  every 
feeling  of  my  heart  recoils  from  the  thought  of  unkindness  to  a 


Christian  brother,  long  loved  and  valued ;  while  fidelity  to  the 
truth  bids  me  treat  his  statements  and  reasonings  with  the  utmost 
freedom. 

The  object  of  your  Essay  seems  to  be,  to  disprove  and  explode 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  or  of  native  depravity ;  taking 
these  terms  in  their  ordinarily  received,  and  well  understood 
sense.  It  is  true,  that  you  occasionally  employ  expressions 
which,  taken  by  themselves,  might  be  viewed  as  not  materially 
exceptionable,  by  the  friends  of  the  doctrine  in  question.  Birt 
I  appreciate  too  highly  your  independence  and  integrity,  to  sus- 
pect that  you  intend  to  be  equivocal.  There  is  an  affluence  in 
the  English  language  which  supplies  appropriate  terms  for  all 
our  ideas ;  and  of  this  affluence  you  are  amply  possessed. 
When  you  intimate  an  opinion  that  the  whole  debate  may  be 
resolved  into  a  difference  in  terminology,  I  can  only  express  my 
surprise  ;  or  rather  I  can  only  avow  a  surprise  which  it  is  out  of 
my  power  to  express. 

If,  in  the  remarks  which  I  shall  offer  on  your  theory,  I  shall  make 
it  appear  that  the  philosophic  principle  on  which  it  is  built,  is 
erroneous — that  the  celebrated  author  whose  support  it  claims, 
gives  it  no  support  at  all — that  the  theory  itself  is  in  conflict  with 
the  scriptures — that  it  is  inconsistent  with  your  own  repeated 
admissions  and  statements — and  finally,  that  it  stands  opposed  to 
your  publicly  avowed  opinions ;  you  will  doubdess  admit  that  it 
should  be  abandoned.  On  the  points  thus  indicated,  I  will  ven- 
ture no  confident  promises.  All  I  ask  is,  to  be  favored,  in  this 
discussion,  with  the  candid  attention,  and  the  critical  scrutiny,  of 
yourself,  and  of  my  readers  at  large. 


LETTER   II. 

rillLOSOPIIV  OF  THE   THEORY  IN  QUESTION. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

Your  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  based  on  the  ap- 
prehended fact,  that  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  transgression 
of  known  law,  and  in  nothing  else;  in  a  word,  that  properly 
speaking,  there  is  no  other  sin  beside  actual  sin.     Thus  you 


would   seem  to  exclude  propensities,  dispositions,  habits,  from 
the  possession  of  any  moral  character  whatever. 

Here  I  observe  that  your  error,  if  it  is  an  error,  is,  in  strict- 
ness of  speech,  philosophic,  rather  than  theological.  And  this 
circumstance  gives  me  leave  to  remark  on  the  infinite  danger  of 
introducing  into  religious  subjects,  philosophic  principles  which 
are  in  the  least  degree  doubtful.  Here,  for  instance,  is  a  very 
simple,  and,  as  some  would  think,  a  very  innocent  maxim ;  that 
all  sin  consists  in  action.  And  yet  this  maxim,  so  simple  and 
so  innocent,  is  made  a  lever  by  which  to  overturn  a  great  doc- 
trine of  the  gospel  which  the  Christian  church  has,  from  the  first, 
regarded  as  not  only  unquestionable  in  its  evidence,  but  as  lying 
at  the  foundation  of  the  whole  system  of  religion,  theoretic  and 
practical. 

Permit  me  another  remark.  When  we  undertake  to  philoso- 
phize in  religion,  the  utmost  caution  is  needful.  Shall  we  as- 
sume a  philosophical  dogma,  and  make  the  scripture  bend  to  it  ? 
Or  shall  we  not  rather  take  our  stand  by  the  sacred  oracle,  and 
modestly  consent  that  all  our  preconceived  philosophical  notions 
shall  bov/  and  fall  before  it?  In  other  words,  shall  we  confident- 
ly determine  for  ourselves  what  the  Bible  ought  to  say ;  or  shall 
we  humbly  inquire  what  it  has  actually  said  ? 

Excuse  me,  my  dear  Sir,  in  declaring  my  apprehension,  that 
to  an  error  in  this  very  point,  are  to  be  traced  the  perplexities 
and  disputes  which  have  recently  infested  the  church  on  the 
subject  of  original  sJ7i.  The  doctrine,  it  is  assumed  by  its  op- 
posers,  is  at  war  with  the  philosophy  of  the  hu?nan  mind.  It 
cannot  therefore  be  found  in  the  Bible  ;  and  whoever  undertakes 
to  defend  it,  must  do  it  at  the  expense  of  his  reputation  for 
scholarship  and  philosophy.  It  is  but  too  true,  that  the  church 
does  not  abound  with  those  heroic  spirits  that  can  encounter  a 
peril  like  this. 

I  readily,  indeed,  admit  that  if  you  can  satisfactorily  establish 
the  theory,  that  all  sin  consists  in  action,  you  effectually  subvert 
the  doctrine  of  original  or  native  depravity.  And  from  this  fact, 
I  infer  with  confidence,  that  the  theory  is  untenable  and  false, 
since  the  doctrine  is  found  in  the  Bible  ;  intimately  wrought  into 
its  whole  system,  and  constantly  meeting  us  on  its  very  face. 

But  I  will  not  stop  here.  I  unhesitatingly  join  issue  with  you 
on  the  philosophic  point  in  question,  and  will  give  it  a  momen- 
tary discussion. 

And  here  let  me  inquire  :  In  estimating  the  characters  of  men, 
do  we  regard  their  actions  merely  j  or  do  we  search  for  some- 


thing  beyond — their  dispositions,  their  propensities,  their  habits, 
their  governing  principles  of  action  ?  Unquestionably  the  last. 
Actions  are  of  no  farther  importance  than  as  they  indicate  and 
deternaine  the  principles  from  which  they  spring.  It  is  princi- 
ples, then,  and  not  actions,  which  give  the  decisive  stamp  of 
character. 

Will  you  say,  that  these  principles  belong  to  the  class  of  vol- 
untary action  ?  In  this  case,  you  touch  the  very  core  of  the 
difficulty,  and  furnish  the  means  of  its  solution.  No  one  will 
contend  that  pride  and  humility,  that  generosity  and  meanness, 
that  benevolence  and  selfishness,  are  actions.  They  are  prin- 
ciples of  action.  And  to  prove  that  this  is  their  distinctive  and 
simple  character,  it  is  needful  only  to  remark  that  they  exist  and 
remain,  when  the  action  to  which  they  naturally  give  birth,  is 
entirely  suspended.  The  generous  man  cannot  always  be  per- 
forming generous  actions.  But  he  is  not  the  less  a  generous 
man  still.  Surely,  my  dear  Sir,  you  will  not  contend  that  the 
Christian  ceases  to  be  a  Christian,  whenever  the  exercise  of 
grace  is  suspended.  No.  The  principle  of  grace  remains.  It 
is  enduring  and  imperishable.  And  what  is  the  inference  ? 
Neither  holiness  nor  sin  consists  exclusively  in  action. 

While  discussing  the  philosophy  of  your  scheme,  I  must  ad- 
vert to  another  point.  In  explaining  the  actual  sinfulness  of 
human  beings,  you  trace  it  to  certain  native  susceptibilities  ;  a 
term  which  you  abundantly  employ,  and  which  I  cannot  but  wish 
you  had  explained.  Concerning  these  susceptibilities  you  de- 
clare that  they  are  adapted  to  lead  and  excite  us  to  sin,  (p.  52.) 
You  even  declare  that  they  certainly  lead  to  si^i,  and  only  to  sin, 
(p.  44.)  Yet  these  susceptibilities,  you  strenuously  contend, 
are  innocent — altogether  innocent.  Here,  your  common-sense 
readers  are  much  perplexed,  and  ask  to  be  enlightened.  That 
a  disposition  to  commit  sin  is  a  sinful  disposition,  they  perfectly 
understand.  They  were  taught  it  in  the  nursery.  The  lesson 
they  can  never  forget,  nor  renounce.  But  how  suscepti- 
bilities altogether  innocent  should  tend  to  sin,  and  even  ccr- 
tainly  lead  to  it,  puzzles  them  extremely.  Yet  this  is  the  vital 
principle,  the  grand  support,  of  your  theory.  Take  it  away, 
and  the  whole  fabric  falls  at  once.  I  am  constrained  to  add,  that 
while  it  remains,  it  will  press  on  your  system,  like  an  incubus, 
fatal  to  its  energies,  and  ultimately  fatal  to  its  existence. 


LETTER   III. 


Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

You  have  introduced  into  your  Essay,  several  passages  trans- 
lated from  Vitringa ;  and  this  mainly,  it  should  seem,  for  the 
purpose  of  proving  that  all  sin  consists  in  action.  Will 
you  excuse  me  in  remarking  that  the  passages  introduced  afford 
your  theory  not  the  shadow  of  support ;  and  that  on  the  princi- 
pal point  attempted  to  be  proved,  your  favorite  author  abandons  ; 
and  even  contradicts  you  ?  Vitringa  recognizes  and  ratifies  the 
distinction  between  the  hahit  of  sin,  which  he  denominates  vi- 
tium,  and  the  act,  which  he  styles  peccatum.  And  he  expressly 
declares  that  "habitual  sin,  in  the  order  of  nature  and  time, 
precedes  sin  in  the  action."  On  these  views  of  Vitringa,  you  re- 
mark that  his  "  vitium  appears  to  be  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
the  frequently  repeated,  i.  e.  habitual  desire  to  sin,  which  leads 
to  the  commission  of  what  he  calls  sinful  acts."  You  afterward 
declare  that  "  nothing  will  be  found  plainer  or  more  certain,  than 
that  his  vitium  is  as  really  a  transgression  of  the  divine  law  (and 
of  course  an  act  of  the  mind)  as  h\s  2) eccatu7n. 

How  then  stands  the  case  ?  You  quote  a  writer  as  of  high 
and  commanding  authority,  to  prove  a  favorite  point.  Having 
quoted,  you  contradict  him,  as  not  understanding  the  meaning  of 
his  own  terms.  And  in  virtue  of  this  contradiction,  you  claim 
his  support  in  behalf  of  the  very  theory  which  he  rejects  !  I  feel 
myself,  then,  not  only  warranted,  but  constrained  to  add,  that  the 
statement  of  Vitringa,  far  from  proving  that  all  sin  consists  in  ac- 
tion, proves  directly  the  reverse.  Indeed,  he  asserts,  in  so 
many  words,  and  this,  in  the  very  face  of  your  theory,  that  "  all 
sin  is  not  act.  Neglect  of  duty  is  sin."  Such  being  literally 
the  state  of  facts,  I  cannot  help  imagining  that  I  see  the  venera- 
ble Dutchman  smile  (not  to  say  frown)  at  your  attempt  to  enlist 
him  in  such  a  cause. 

I  have  not  Vitringa  at  hand  ;  and  I  sincerely  regret  that  I 
have  not.  Yet  I  cannot  withhold  one  additional  remark.  Should 
any  inference  be  drawn  from  your  quotations  and  comments, 
that  this  celebrated  author  espouses  and  defends  the  modern 


8 

theory  which  denies  original  sin,  it  would,  I  strongly  apprehend, 
be  a  most  unjust  inference  ;  wounding  to  his  high  reputation, 
and  injurious  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  piety.  You  do  not  your- 
self intimate  that  in  the  passages  quoted,  he  had  any  immediate 
reference  to  the  case  of  infants.  Is  it  not  altogether  probable 
that  he  had  principal  reference  to  the  case  of  adults  ;  and  that 
in  discussing  the  nature  of  sin,  he  uttered,  as  the  most  accurate 
writers  are  apt  to  do,  in  a  similar  case,  some  things  which  belong 
exclusively  to  adults,  and  do  not  touch  the  case  of  infants  ?  Even 
the  Saviour,  in  his  final  charge  to  his  Apostles,  relative  to  their 
preaching  of  the  gospel,  declares,  He  that  helieveth  shall  be 
saved ;  hut  he  that  helieveth  not  shall  he  damned.  The  declar- 
ation may  seem,  at  first  view,  to  embrace  the  whole  human 
family.  But  on  a  moment's  reflection,  we  perceive  that  it  refers 
exclusively  to  adults,  and  can  have  no  reference  to  infants,  who 
surely  are  not  debarred  from  salvation  by  their  incapacity  to  ex- 
ercise faith. 

Permit  me,  on  this  point,  to  appeal  to  one  authority  more — an 
authority  of  no  little  weight;  I  mean  your  own.  In  the  second 
part  of  your  Essay,  you  explicitly  state  that  in  certain  cases, 
disposition,  hias,  inclination,  propensity,  may  be  properly  spoken 
of  as  sinfiil,  and  as  themselves  sinful.  True,  you  admit  this, 
only  where  they  have  been  strengthened  or  augmented  by  vol- 
untary sinful  indulgence.  Still,  your  statement  proves,  at  least, 
that  there  are  some  cases  in  which  propensities,  dispositions,  Sic. 
are  truly  and  properly  sinful.  And  what  more  than  this  is  need- 
ful to  prove  that  your  favorite  maxim,  that  all  sin  consists  in 
action,  is  a  sheer  mistake  ;  and  that  the  theory  you  have  built 
upon  it,  is  founded  in  error  ? 


LETTER    IV. 

the  theory  compared  with  scripture. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

Let  us  now  repair  to  the  Heavenly  Oracle,  Let  us  con- 
sult that  supreme  and  infallible  Judge  whose  decisions  alone 
can  give  satisfactiou  to  the  mind  in  a  case  at  once  so  momen- 


tous  and  perplexing.  Unquestionably,  if  the  point  is  ever  to  be 
ultimately  settled,  we  shall  be  indebted  for  the  consummation, 
not  to  human  ingenuity  and  argument,  but  to  a  meek,  humble, 
implicit  submission  to  the  word  of  God. 

And  here,  suffer  me  to  remark  ;  if  the  theory  which  denies 
infant  or  native  depravity,  is  found  in  the  Bible,  it  is,  as  it  regards 
the  Church,  a  discovery  of  very  recent  date.  You  will  find  it 
difficult  to  deny  that  the  Church,  as  a  body,  has,  from  the  first, 
maintained  the  opposite  doctrine.  And  can  it  be,  that  on  a  funda- 
mental point  of  our  religion,  the  mind  of  God  has  remained 
latent  and  undiscovered,  till  the  nineteenth  century  ?  Has  the 
Oracle  uttered  no  response  till  now  ?  Has  a  grand  and  vital 
truth  of  Inspiration  eluded  the  researches  of  the  greatest  and  the 
best  of  former  times,  and  revealed  itself  to  the  piety,  the  learning 
and  the  profound  investigation  of  our  own  time  ?  Credat  Ju- 
dcRus  Apella.  You,  my  dear  Sir,  will  not  readily  believe  it. 
And  certainly  I  shall  not. 

I  will  ask  your  attention  to  a  kw  passages  of  Scripture.  If 
these  shall  be  found  to  speak  a  language  altogether  precise  and 
unequivocal,  as  I  trust  they  will,  these  {e\v  will  be  as  decisive  on 
the  point,  as  a  thousand.  Several  of  the  passages  in  question 
you  have  yourself  introduced,  with  comments  designed  to  show 
their  incompetency  to  prove  that  children  are  chargeable  with 
actual  transgression  from  their  birth.  But  I  must  request  you 
to  consider  them  with  care  in  another  light ;  I  mean  in  their 
bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  a  proper  native  depravity,  as  it  re- 
gards the  whole  human  race, 

Jn  Gen.  5,  1.  it  is  declared,  "In  the  day  that  God  created 
man,  in  the  likeness  of  God  made  he  him."  In  a  verse  almost 
immediately  succeeding,  it  is  added,  "Adam  begat  a  son  in  his 
own  likeness,  after  his  image,"  The  contrast  is  equally  simple, 
obvious,  and  affecting.  How  could  words  more  significantly 
declare  that  the  son  of  the  fallen  Adam  was  the  opposite,  in 
character  and  disposition,  to  the  un-fallen  father?  And  is  it  not 
equally  clear  that  he  received  this  depraved  character  by  inher- 
itance, by  birth  ?  Here,  too,  a  question  arises,  which  looks  to 
you  for  a  solution.  How  do  these  strong  and  unbending  ex- 
pressions comport  with  your  soft  and  pliant  theory  of  a  mere 
difl:erence  in  Xhe  proportion  o(  susceptibilities  in  regard  to  sinful 
excitement,  as  possessed  by  innocent  Adam,  and  by  his  poster- 
ity ?  Does  not  the  contrast  instituted  between  these  classes  of 
susceptibilties,  or  rather  of  dispositions  and  propensities,  obviouslv 
2 


10 

respect  their  very  nature,  and  not  merely  their  degree  and  pro- 
portion? Yet  this  is  the  very  thing  which  you  strenuously 
deny. 

I  shall  not  view  it  as  un-critical  (borrowing  your  own  expres- 
sion) to  resort,  in  the  next  place,  to  Job  15.  14  ;  especially  as 
the  quotation  to  be  introduced  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  the 
uniform  language  of  Scripture.  "What  is  man,  that  he  should 
be  clean ;  and  he  that  is  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  should  be 
righteous  ? "  This  passage  gives  us  to  understand  that  every  in- 
dividual of  the  human  family,  without  exception,  is  born  in  a 
state  of  moral  depravity.  It  does  more,  indeed  than  make  the 
assertion  in  direct  terms.  It  takes  the  fact  for  granted.  It  im- 
plies that  it  is  not  only  true,  but  self-evident  and  undeniable.  It 
implies  that  the  contrary  doctrine  is  not  only  false,  but  grossly 
and  palpably  absurd.  It  implies  that  every  human  being  is  origi- 
nally impure  in  a  moral  sense  ;  that  every  individual  born  of 
woman  is,  by  nature  unholy  and  depraved. 

My  next  quotation  is  from  Psalm  51.  5.  "Behold  I  was 
shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me," 
This  acknowledgment  of  David  was  uttered  in  the  view  of  gross 
actual  transgressions  of  the  divine  law.  And  his  meaning  and 
design  are  perfectly  obvious.  He  traces  the  bitter  streams  of 
evil  to  the  more  bitter  and  overflowing  fountain  of  a  corrupt 
heart.  Far  from  pleading,  as  some  have  done,  his  inbred  cor- 
ruption as  an  excuse  for  his  actual  sin,  he  recurs  to  it  as  an 
aggravation.  The  consciousness  of  this  corruption,  he  seems 
to  say,  should  have  rendered  him  more  watchful  against  tempta- 
tion, more  guarded  against  every  approach  to  actual  transgres- 
sion. And  what  is  the  doctrine  which  every  unsophisticated 
reader  perceives  on  the  very  face  of  this  remarkable  passage  ? 
It  is  simply  this;  that  the  royal  suppliant  commenced  his  exis- 
tence in  a  state  of  moral  depravity  ;  that  the  first  moment  he 
became  a  human  being,  he  became  a  sinful  being ;  that  in  this 
respect,  he  was  a  sample  of  the  race  ;  and  that  of  course,  every 
individual  of  the  human  family  commences  existence  in  the  same 
moral  condition. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  the  New  Testament,  and  listen  to  the 
divine  Teacher,  while  he  declares  to  Nicodemus  (John  3.  6.) 
"  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh."  This  assertion  imme- 
diately follows  his  assertion  of  the  necessity  of  regeneration.  To 
those  acquainted  with  the  use  of  the  term  flesh,  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, there  is  one  construction  of  the  passage,  and  one  only, 


11 

which  appears  unforced  and  natural.  It  is  this ;  That  which 
proceeds  from  depraved  and  sinful  parents,  is,  like  themselves, 
sinful  and  depraved.  No  other  sense  forms  a  proper  and  intel- 
ligible antithesis  between  the  former  and  latter  clauses  of 
the  verse.  In  this  view,  it  appears  that  the  Saviour  builds  on 
the  native  depravity  of  human  beings,  tlie  necessity  of  their  re- 
generation. And  reason  itself  declares  aloud,  that  if  human 
beings  are  naturally  sinful  and  corrupt,  they  must  be  renewed  and 
sanctified,  in  order  to  enter  a  holy  heaven.  You  repeatedly 
admit,  my  dear  Sir,  the  absolute  necessity  of  regeneration,  even 
as  it  regards  those  who  die  in  infancy.  But  do  you  not,  by  deny- 
ing their  proper  depravity,  virtually  deny  the  necessity  of  their 
regeneration.  For  to  wliat  purpose  is  the  verbal  admission  of  a 
doctrine,  if  the  fact  on  which  it  rests,  the  fact  on  which  our  di- 
vine Teacher  rests  it,  is  denied,  and  its  foundation  of  course,  en- 
tirely removed  ? 

Let  us  attend,  for  a  moment,  to  that  remarkable  and  appalling 
declaration  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Ephesians,  in  the  second  chap- 
ter of  his  Epistle  :  "And  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath, 
even  as  others."  Your  remark  on  this  passage  is  worthy  of 
notice.  You  are  anxious  to  have  it  considered  as  designating 
simply  the  natural  and  unregenerate  state  of  man,  in  distinction 
from  a  regenerate  state.  Thus  you  would  deprive  it  of  all  direct 
reference  to  the  time  when,  and  the  manner  in  which,  sin  com- 
mences or  exists.  Suppose  this  point  to  be  yielded  ;  and  how 
will  your  cause  be  served  by  it?  Suppose  the  Apostle  to  predi- 
cate the  wrath  of  God  upon  a  state  of  unregeneracy.  Is  not 
depravity  likewise  necessarily  impUed  in  the  case  .''  Can  there 
be  wrath  where  there  is  no  sin  }  Will  a  God  of  infinite  benev- 
olence denounce  his  anger  on  beings,  the  work  of  his  hands,  on 
account  of  their  innocent  susceptibilities  ?  Will  he  punish  their 
future  sins  with  present  vengeance  ? — Alas,  your  scheme,  while 
it  promises  us  light,  pours  the  horrors  of  an  Egyptian  darkness 
upon  the  whole  scene. 

Finally,  on  this  point,  let  us  recur  to  Romans  5.  12 — 19.  This 
is  a  passage  of  unspeakable  interest.  Were  it  expunged  from 
the  Book  of  God,  the  information  it  gives  would  be  fully  sup- 
plied in  no  other  part.  It  pours  a  flood  of  light  on  the  topic  of 
our  native  depravity  and  guilt.  It  asserts  both  the  one  and  the 
other,  in  terms  absolutely  impossible  to  be  evaded.  True,  you 
declare  that  the  exhibition,  considered  in  this  light,  comes  quite 
too  late ;    since  the  Apostle,  in  the  three  first  chapters  of  the 


12 

epistle,  had  completed  and  closed  his  proof  of  the  guilt,  both  of 
Jews  and  Gentiles.  Really,  my  dear  Sir,  I  cannot  but  regret 
these  remarks.  They  are  a  specimen  of  a  priori  reasoning 
altogether  peculiar.  That  the  proof  of  human  depravity  and 
guilt,  exhibited  in  the  chapters  named,  was  most  luminous  and 
convincing,  I  readily  confess.  But  that  the  subject  admitted  no 
farther  illustration,  is  a  discovery  entirely  your  own.  Should 
we  not,  in  candor  and  deference  to  the  Apostle,  submit  the  whole 
matter  to  his  own  judgment,  and  consent  to  receive  any  addi- 
tional illustration  in  his  own  time,  and  his  own  way  ?  Indeed, 
is  it  not  perfectly  natural,  that  when  the  Apostle  proceeds,  as  he 
does  in  the  last  part  of  this  chapter,  to  unfold  the  analogy  be- 
tween our  ruin  and  our  recovery^  we  should  perceive  liglit  re- 
flected by  the  latter  on  the  former,  which  could  arise  from  no 
other  source  ?   And  this  is  literally  and  undeniably  the  fact. 

Suffer  me  to  fasten  your  attention,  for  a  moment,  on  the  12th 
verse.  "  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man,  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
and  death  by  sin  ;  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that 
all  have  sinned."  In  the  last  sentence  of  this  verse,  as  connec- 
ted with  what  precedes,  you  perceive  two  things  most  unequivo- 
cally asserted ;  first,  that  sin  and  death  in  the  human  family,  are 
alike  universal.  Secondly,  that  death  is  the  fruit  or  consequence 
of  sin.  Now  consider,  if  you  please,  this  inspired  assertion  in 
its  application  to  infants.  In  every  age,  infants  die  by  millions  ;* 
and  as  death  is  the  fruit  of  sin,  their  death  is  either  the  punish- 
ment and  proof  oi  their  personal  depravity,  or  God  visits  on  them 
the  penalty  incurred  by  their  first  progenitor.  This  is  the  pre- 
cise dilemma  which  meets  you.  And  is  not  either  aspect  of  it 
fatal  to  your  system  ? 

I  have  not  time  to  multiply  remarks  ;  nor  is  it  needful.  I 
will  simply  recite  the  18th  and  19th  verses.  "Therefore,  ashy 
the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemna- 
tion ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came 
upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life.  For  as  by  one  man's 
disobedience,  many  were  made  sinners  ;  so  by  the  obedience  of 
one,  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  Are  we  not  here  taught, 
and  unequivocally  taught,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  involved  the 
whole  race  in  condemnation  ;  that  by  his  disobedience,  the 
whole  human  family  are  constituted  sinners,  and  treated  as  such? 

*I  have  no  objection  at  all  to  that  larger  view  of  the  cW</t  intended  in  this  verse,  which 
you  have  given  in  your  Commentary  on  Romans.  It  is  sufficient  to  the  purpose  of 
my  argument,  that  temporal  death  is  included  5  and  this  you  of  course  admit. 


13 

In  other  words,  are  we  not  taught  that  God  dealt  with  the  first 
parent,  not  as  a  mere  insulated  individual,  but  a  public  person; 
the  head  and  representative  of  all  his  unborn  offspring  ;  by 
whose  obedience  or  disobedience,  in  one  grand  instance,  iheir 
character  and  their  destiny  were  to  be  determined  ? 

But  this,  you  will  say,  perhaps,  is  neither  more  nor  less  than 
imputation ;  and  from  every  approach  to  this  doctrine,  you 
shrink  with  horror.  For  myself,  1  have  no  apprehension  that 
ihefate  of  the  church  depends  on  the  retention  or  abandonment 
of  a  word.  But  suffer  me  to  ask  ;  Is  not  the  question,  in  this  case, 
in  reality  a  question  of  fact  ?  Has  the  Most  High  actually  treat- 
ed the  human  family  in  accordance  with  the  conduct  of  their  first 
parent?  Do  they  endure  substantially  the  same  consequences, 
as  if  they  had  personally  participated  in  his  original  transgres- 
sion ?  And  does  all  this  take  place  according  to  the  divine  plan  ? 
Does  it  comport  with  the  arrangement  made  by  the  God  of  heaven 
with  the  great  father  of  the  human  family  ?  If  all  these  questions 
must  be  answered  in  the  affirmative — and  I  can  see  no  room  for 
hesitation  here — the  controversy  which  has  so  long  agitated  the 
church  on  the  subject  of  imputation,  may  cease  and  determine. 
Its  friends  ask  nothing  but  the  admission  of  the  few  simple  facts 
which  have  been  stated.  And  its  enemies  cannot  easily  deny 
them. 

Let  me  not  be  understood  as  defending  the  doctrine  that  hu- 
man beings  are  subjected  to  eternal  suffering,  or  indeed  to  any 
suffering,  as  innocent,  and  irrespectively  of  their  personal  sin. 
From  the  commencement  of  their  being,  they  are  personally 
depraved  and  sinful,  and,  in  this  view,  obnoxious  to  the  displeas- 
ure of  God,  and  all  its  dreadful  consequences.  Indeed,  how 
can  the  fact  that  they  commence  their  existence  in  this  state,  be 
explained,  but  on  the  principle  of  a  constituted  connection  with 
their  apostate  parent !  Would  a  just  and  benevolent  God  inflict 
so  tremendous  an  evil  for  no  cause,  or  as  matter  of  pure  sover- 
eignty ? 

Nor  is  it  any  part  of  the  doctrine,  arising  from  the  scriptural 
passages  last  quoted,  that  human  beings,  dying  in  infancy,  are 
necessarily  lost.  The  conclusions  they  naturally  suggest,  seem 
to  be  directly  the  reverse.  Infants,  without  consciousness,  and 
without  personal  transgression,  partake  in  the  deleterious  effects 
of  the  apostasy.  And  may  they  not,  without  consciousness,  and 
without  the  actual  exercise  of  faith,  partake  in  the  redemption 
and  salvation  of  Christ  ?  We  believe  they  do.  It  is  natural  to 
entertain  the  delightful  thought,  that  all  who  die  in  infancy  are. 


14 

through  that  grace  of  Heaven  which  abounds  and  super-abounds 
— washed,  sanctified  and  everlastingly  saved.  Yes,  the  thought 
is  natural^  as  well  as  delightful.  Nothing  in  Scripture  stands 
plainly  opposed  to  it.  While,  at  the  same  time,  as  the  fact  is 
not  plainly  revealed,  we  should  speak  on  the  subject  with  that 
diffidence  which  becomes  us  on  every  subject  where  the  mind 
of  God  is  noL  distinctly  and  decisively  declared. 

You  are  now  in  possession  of  my  grand  objection  to  your 
scheme.  Unless  I  grossly  mistake,  it  is  at  war  with  the  Bible  ; 
with  its  spirit,  and  its  letter ;  with  its  general  design  and  tenor, 
and  with  [)articular  passages  almost  innumerable  ;  for  the  pas- 
sages briefly  discussed  are  but  a  mere  specimen  of  what  the 
Bible  contains.  It  is  a  sufficient  objection  against  any  religious 
theory,  if  it  fails  to  find  support  in  Scripture.  What  then  shall 
we  say,  if  it  brings  us  into  direct  and  constant  collision  with  it ; 
if  it  can  be  maintained  only  by  putting  the  Bible  to  a  species  of 
torture? — You  are  a  Christian  and  a  philologist.  And  you  will 
pardon  me  in  saying,  that  the  process  by  which  your  pure  and 
accurate  mind  has  been  brought  to  its  present  views  of  a  multi- 
tude of  inspired  passages,  is  to  me  perfectly  inexplicable. 

I  have,  indeed,  admitted,  and  with  pleasure  I  repeat  the  ad- 
mission, that  your  Essay  contains  many  passages  on  the  subject 
of  native  depravity,  which  are  not  materially  exceptionable  ;  by 
which  I  mean,  that  they  are  not  obvious  departures  from  Scrip- 
ture doctrine.  That  I  may  be  sure  of  doing  you  full  justice  on 
this  important  point,  I  will  group  together,  in  a  single  view,  sev- 
eral of  the  most  remarkable  expressions  to  which  1  allude.  In 
page  27,  you  speak  of  "  our  nature,  since  the  fall  of  Adam,"  as 
"  degenerate  and  prone  to  sin."  You  declare  (p.  43,)  that  "  the 
dominant  susceptibilities  of  infants  are  those  which  lead  to  sin." 
In  p.  45,  you  speak  of  "the  predominant  tendency  of  the  sus- 
ceptibilities of  infants  born  since  the  fall,"  as  "  reversed,  and  so 
much  reversed,  that  as  soon  as  they  come  to  moral  agency,  the 
doing  of  evil  will  always  take  place,  in  regard  to  every  moral 
action."  In  p.  48,  you  state  that  "  the  susceptibility  of  impres- 
sion from  sinful  objects  is  innate,  connate,  original,"  &,c.  and 
"  will  develope  itself  in  persuading  and  influencing  men — all 
men — to  sin."  In  p.  49,  you  declare  your  belief  that  "  Adam, 
by  his  transgression,  made  or  constituted  all  men  sinners."  In 
the  same  page,  you  emphatically  claim  to  be  "a  believer  in  the 
native,  original  depravity  of  man,  in  the  only  sense  in  which  this 
is  an  intelligible  proposition."     Now,  my  dear  Sir,  whatever  I 


15 

may  think  of  the  philosophy  involved  in  some  of  these  forms  of 
expression,  1  should  cordially  rejoice  to  give  them  credit  for 
substantial  orthodoxy.  But  from  this  gratification  you  have 
yourself  entirely  precluded  me.  If  you  ask  me,  how  ;  I  reply 
at  once,  that  you  have  effectually  neutralized,  not  to  say,  retract- 
ed and  reversed,  the  statements  which  I  have  recited  above,  and 
which  wear  so  imposing  an  appearance  of  orthodoxy.  You  as- 
sert that  those  very  susceptibilities  which  in  fallen  man,  are  so 
pregnant  of  evil,  existed  substantially  in  Adam  while  innocent, 
and  in  the  fallen  angels,  while  in  their  originally  pure  and  holy 
state.  You  even  declare  (though  my  pen  almost  refuses  to  re- 
cord the  declaration)  that  "  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself  had  a 
susceptibility  of  feeling  the  power  of  enticement  to  sin ;  like 
that  which  Adam  had  before  his  fall."  The  only  difference,  in 
the  two  cases,  consists,  as  you  assert,  in  the  different  degree, 
proportion  and  predominance  of  susceptibilities.  Hence  you 
reason  in  this  style  :  "  That  which  Adam  possessed,  as  a  con- 
stituent of  his  very  nature  before  his  fall ;  that  which  the  Savibr 
himself  possessed  when  he  was  tempted  in  all  points  as  we  are, 
should  not  be  called  sin."  And  again  ;  "  That  thing  in  the 
Saviour  and  in  Adam,  which  was  not  sin,  when  existing  in 
one  degree,  is  not  sin,  when  existing  in  ten  degrees  or 
more,  at  the  present  day,  in  all  our  race,  while  in  their 
native  state  or  condition." — So  then  we  are  brought  to  the  con- 
clusion that  those  innate  susceptibilities  which  so  invariably  lead 
to  sin  ;  and  even  that  native,  original  depravity  in  which  you  so 
firmly  believe,  are  in  themselves  innocent — perfectly  innocent. 
If  this  reasoning  does  not  confute  itself,  we  may  at  least  pause 
and  inquire  :  Does  the  Scripture  account  of  man's  apostasy  per- 
mit us  to  consider  it  as  consisting  in  his  susceptibilities  of  good 
impressions  being  paucified,  and  his  susceptibilities  of  evil  im- 
pressions being  multiplied  ?  Does  the  account  it  gives  of  regen- 
eration represent  it  as  a  turning  of  the  balance,  or  reversing  of 
the  weights  in  the  respective  scales  ?  If  this  last  is  the  case,  we 
must  be  content  to  remain  sadly  ignorant  of  what  is  meant  by  a 
renovation,  by  a  new  creation,  by  beins;  born  again,  by  passing 
from  death  to  life.  True,  these  expressions  are  metaphorical. 
But  are  they  metaphors  without  meaning  ?  Are  they  designed 
to  pour  darkness,  and  not  light,  on  the  subject  ?  Are  they  in- 
tended to  perplex  and  bewilder  the  mind,  instead  of  guiding  it  ? 


16 


LETTER   V. 

the  theory  charged  with  some  material  errors. the  term 

susceptibility  equivocal  and  perplexing. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

If  your  theory,  as  I  think  I  have  shown,  shrinks  from  some  of 
the  most  natural  tests  to  which  it  can  be  brought,  is  there  not 
reason  to  apprehend  that  it  embraces  some  latent  defects  ;  some 
vital,  pervading  errors  ?     I  verily  believe  it  does. 

Will  you  then  indulge  me  your  candor,  while  T  advert  to  a 
few  points  which  appear  to  me  to  be  unsound  spots — -funda- 
mental errors  in  your  system? 

First.  While  in  the  introductory  part  of  your  Essay,  you  seem 
to  pay  deference  to  the  law  of  God,  as  the  grand  test  of  charac- 
ter, and  the  only  standard  of  duty,  you  seem,  in  your  subsequent 
remarks,  to  express  views  materially  different.  You  freely  ad- 
mit that  there  are  such  things  as  dispositions,  inclinations,  propensi- 
ties in  men.  Doubtless  too  you  will  admit  that  the  law  of  God, 
while  it  requires  of  human  beings,  holy  volition  and  action,  equally 
requires  that  their  dispositions,  inclinations  and  propensities  be 
holy.  Nor  will  you  deny  that  this  law  is,  like  its  Author,  unchange- 
able and  eternal.  What  it  required  yesterday,  it  requires  to  day, 
and  will  require  forever.  What  it  required  of  Adam  in  paradise, 
it  equally  requires  of  all  his  posterity,  sinful  and  utterly  depraved 
as  they  are.  Have  you,  my  dear  Sir,  kept  this  constantly  in 
mind  ?  Or  does  the  whole  course  of  your  reasoning,  in  its  bearing 
upon  human  beings,  go  to  prove  that  they  are  under  no  obliga- 
tion to  be  entirely  holy  from  their  first  existence,  and  are  charge- 
able with  no  guilt  on  account  of  their  unholiness  ?  In  other 
words,  does  it  go  to  prove  that  human  apostasy,  human  depravity, 
have  repealed  the  law  of  God  ? — It  has  been,  with  some  great 
divines,  an  axiom,  that  nearly  all  the  errors  which  have  been 
broached  in  religion,  mav  be  traced  to  erroneous  or  defective 
views  of  the  law.  Is  it  not  at  least  possible  that  an  error  of  this 
kind  may  lie  at  the  foundation  of  your  system.?  If  so,  may  it 
not  vitiate  the  whole  superstructure  ? 

Farther ;  you  seem  to  acknowledge  nothing  as  properly  sin- 
ful, which  does  not  partake  of  the  nature  of  positive  transgression. 


17 

This  1  infer  from  your  general  train  of  reasoning,  and  from  a 
particular  passage,  (p,  293)  in  which  you  declare  that  "  omis- 
sion always  amounts  to  the  doing  of  something  which  God  has 
forbidden,  under  present  circumstances,  instead  of  doing  one's 
duty."  You  add,  with  emphasis,  "  The  acts,  tl)e  voluntary 
acts  of  men,  are  those  things  for  which  they  are  either  rewarded 
or  punished."  But  may  you  not  be  in  error  here  ?  Doubtless 
you  are  well  acquainted  with  that  definition  which  the  venerable 
divines  of  Westminster  give  of  sin,  and  which  makes  it  consist  in 
want  of  conformity  to  God's  law,  as  well  as  in  positive  transgres- 
sion. And  is  not  this  the  verdict  of  reason  and  common  sense  ? 
How  shall  we  fix  the  charge  of  guilt,  of  constantly  accumulating 
guilt,  on  thousands  and  millions  of  the  race,  who  live  in  the  habit- 
ual performance,  at  least  of  the  externals  of  moral  and  social 
duty,  and  whose  lives  are  stained  by  no  vice,  or  crime,  but  by 
shewing  them  their  grand,  vital  defect — the  want  of  love  ;  that 
love  to  God  which  his  law  requires  first  of  all ;  that  love  which 
should  have  constituted  the  animating  soul  of  all  their  external 
performances?  And  how  shall  we  evince  the  depravity  of  the 
youngest  of  the  race,  but  by  showing  that  naturally  they  have 
no  love  to  God,  and  no  particle  of  disposition  or  inclination  to 
love  him  ?  Here  is  the  grand  defect ;  and  here  the  grand  evi- 
dence of  their  depravity.  But  if  the  fact  be  overlooked  or  de- 
nied, or  the  evil  of  it  be  overlooked  or  denied,  their  depravity  is 
overlooked  and  denied  of  course. 

Again  ;  your  theory  maintains  the  doctrine  that  human  beings 
may  exist  without  any  character  at  all.  Infants,  you  contend, 
are  innocent ;  but  innocence,  you  declare,  does  not  qualify  them 
for  heaven.  Something  positive  must  be  done  for  them.  They 
must  be  regenerated  ;  they  must  be  rendered  positively  holy,  or 
they  cannot  enter  heaven.  And  can  these  things  be  so  ?  Do 
there  exist  on  earth,  or  indeed  in  any  region  of  the  universe, 
rational,  moral  beings,  who  have  no  moral  character  ?  Are  there 
found  members  of  the  human  family,  who  are  neither  pure  nor 
impure,  neither  holy  nor  unholy  ?  What  relation  then  do  they  bear 
to  God,  to  his  law,  to  his  government  ?  What  relation  do  they 
bear  to  eternity  ?  They  are  not  fit  for  heaven ;  and  they  are 
not  fit  for  the  world  of  despair. 

Permit  me  then  to  remark,  that  would  you  sustain  your  the- 
ory, you  must  furnish   substantial   and  irrefragable  evidence  on 
three  points.     You  must  prove,  first,  that  the  law  of  God  claims 
no  control  over  propensities  and  dispositions  ;   secondly,  that  it 
3 


18 

cannot  be  violated  by  mere  ontiissions  of  duty ;  and  thirdly,  that 
hunian  beings  may  exist  in  a  slate  of  entire  neutrality  in  regard 
to  the  law  of  God,  and  possessing  no  moral  character  at  all.  If 
you  fail  to  prove  either  of  these  points,  your  system  is  under- 
mined and  overthrown. 

You  must  excuse  me,  my  dear  Sir,  if  I  express  in  this  con- 
nection, my  strong  apprehension  that  there  is  much  in  your  favor- 
ite term  susceptibilities,  which  is  calculated  to  perplex,  and  even 
to  mislead.  Not  that  I  suspect  you  to  have  intended  any  thing 
of  the  kind.  I  have  perfect  confidence  in  the  candor  of  your 
mind,  and  the  simplicity  of  your  intentions.  Yet  I  must  confess 
for  myself,  that  with  the  most  earnest  desire  to  ascertain  your 
meaning,  I  have  been  as  effectually  baffled,  as  if  you  really  in- 
tended not  to  be  imderstood. 

At  times  I  have  supposed  that  by  susceptibilities,  you  intend 
simply  those  instincts,  appetites  and  passions  which  are  neces- 
sary and  constituent  parts  of  our  nature.  These,  you  maintain, 
are  in  themselves  innocent ;  and  here  I  have  nothing  to  object. 
But  I  soon  perceive  that  according  to  your  representation,  these 
innocent  susceptibilities  certainly  lead  to  sin,  and  only  to  sin. 
Here  commence  my  perplexity  and  surprise.  You  then  inform 
me  that  these  susceptibilities  are  precisely  the  same  in  nature 
with  those  possessed  by  Adam  in  paradise,  and  by  the  spotless 
Saviour  himself.  And  here  my  perplexity  and  surprise,  to  say 
nothing  of  my  regret,  arise  to  the  highest  pitch. 

Hence  1  am  compelled  to  resort  to  another  supposition  ;  or  to 
consider  the  appetites  and  passions  in  question  as  having  gained 
an  unnatural  ascendency,  and  as  spurning  the  control  of  reason 
and  the  divine  law.  On  this  supposition,  I  can  satisfactorily  ac- 
count for  all  the  sins  of  individuals,  and  all  the  moral  disorders 
of  our  world.  But  here  I  am  perplexed  again,  and  find  a  new 
abyss  opening  before  me.  Is  it  possible  that  these  fertile  sources 
of  evil,  these  effective  causes  of  sin,  can  be  themselves  perfectly 
innocent .''  Can  they  have  existed,  in  the  very  smallest  degree,  in 
Adam  while  un-fallen,  in  the  angels,  in  the  Saviour  himself? 
These  are  suppositions  from  which  reason  revolts,  and  the  heart 
recoils. 

You  think,  indeed,  that  to  admit  the  innocence  of  these  in- 
stincts, appetites,  he.  originally  implanted  in  man,  is  inconsis- 
tent with  the  ordinarily  received  doctrine  of  original  sin.  And 
you  maintain  that  President  Edwards,  by  this  admission,  aban- 


19 

dons  the  ground  of  a  depravity  which  is  innate  or  contemporane' 
ouswith  our  being.  In  your  commentary  on  Romans  (Excur- 
sus 6.)  you  represent  him,  in  this  point,  not  only  as  inconsistent 
with  himself,  but  as  virtually  giving  countenance  to  your  own 
views.  Yet  I  cannot  but  apprehend  that  you  mi-take  this 
great  divine.  His  doctrine  is,  that  "  the  absence  of  positive 
good  principles,  and  the  withholding  of  special  divine  influence 

leaving  the  common  natural  principles   of  self-love,  natural 

appetite,  &,c.  which  were  in  man  in  innocence — leaving  them 
to  themselves,  without  the  government  of  superior  divine  princi- 
ples, will  certainly  be  followed  by  the  corruption,  yea,  the  total 
corruption  of  the  heart.  Thus,"  he  declares,  "  the  corruption  of 
nature  came  on  Adam  immediately  on  his  fall."  He  main- 
tains, likewise,  that  all  Adam's  posterity  commence  tlieir  exis- 
tence ^recwe/y  in  this  state  ;  "they  come  into  the  world  mere 
Jlesh,  entirely  under  the  government  of  natural  and  inferior  prin- 
ciples, and  so  become  wholly  corrupt,  as  Adam  did."  This 
is  his  representation.  How  then  can  he  be  said  to  abandon  the 
ground  of  a  depravity   which  is  innate,  and  contemporaneous 


LETTER    VI. 

the  theory  undermined  and  destroyed  by  its  own 

concessions. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

In  discussing  your  theory  thus  far,  I  have  aimed  to  show  that 
it  is  hostile  to  sound  philosophy,  and  the  word  of  God.  Pardon 
me  if  I  proceed,  and  attempt  to  point  out  some  of  its  inconsis- 
tencies with  your  own  repeated  admissions  and  statements.  On 
this  ungracious  part  of  the  subject,  I  will  endeavor  to  be  as  brief 
as  possible. 

First.  You  admit  that  infants  have  no  holiness.  Here,  then, 
is  a  defect.  And  let  me  ask,  what  is  the  nature  of  this  defect? 
Is  it  innocent,  or  the  reverse  .''  On  your  principles  it  is  innocent ; 
for  infants  themselves  are  innocent.  Yet  for  this  defect  of  holi- 
ness, this  innocent  defect,  they  are,  upon  your  theory,  excluded 


20 

by  a  just  and  benevolent  God  from  heaven.  And  more  than 
this  (for  I  do  not  suspect  you  of  holding  to  an  intermediate  or 
purgatorial  state)  they  must  be  consigned  to  hopeless  and  ever- 
lasting misery. 

Secondly.  From  this  holiness,  so  necessary  to  save  them  from 
eternal  woe,  and  to  bring  them  to  heaven,  they  are,  by  your 
theory,  hopelessly  debarred.  You  hold  that  sin  consists  in  vol- 
untary Iransgression  of  known  law,  and  that  nothing  else  is  sin. 
Now  from  this  principle,  I  have  the  clearest  right  to  infer  that 
holiness,  the  opj)Osite  of  sin,  consists  in  voluntary  obedience  to 
known  law.  But  of  this  voluntary  obedience,  and  of  the  knowl- 
edge implied  in  it,  infants  are  equally  and  entirely  incapable. 
And  thus  that  becomes  absolutely  essential  to  their  salvation, 
which  is  absolutely  impossible. 

Thirdly.  You  assert  that  there  is,  in  our  very  nature,  a  germ 
which,  when  developed,  renders  a//  the  motives  to  virtue  insuffi- 
cient to  overcome  the  force  of  enticement  to  sin.  This  germ,  you 
declare,  must,  through  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  regulat- 
ed, changed,  modified,  eradicated  even  [if  it  must  he  so.)  Yet 
this  ge7'm  is,  on  your  principles  perfectly  innocent.  Do  you  not 
then  assign  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  work  perfectly  new,  and  per- 
fectly needless''  Is  there  any  doctrine  better  understood  in  the 
Christian  church  than  this,  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  his  work  of 
renovation,  subdues  and  eradicates  nothing  but  sin  ^ 

Fourthly.  While  you  assert  the  necessity  of  regeneration  for 
infants,  you  certainly  will  not  deny  this  necessity  as  it  regards 
the  adult.  Here,  then,  are  two  species  of  regeneration,  entirely 
distinct,  and  essentially  different;  one,  for  those  who  have  not 
one  particle  of  real  sin;  another,  for  those  in  whom  the  princi- 
ples of  sin  are  deeply  radicated,  and  awfully  matured.  Does 
the  Scripture  any  where  explicitly  recognize  this  distinction,  or 
even  remotely  hint  at  it  ?  Does  common  sense,  does  reason, 
does  soimd  philosophy  give  it  countenance  ?  Does  not  your 
own  discerning  mind,  on  cool  reflection,  repudiate  it  ? 

Fifthly.  That  regeneration  which,  in  one  view  of  your  sys- 
tem, seems  inexplicable  and  needless,  appears,  in  another  view, 
absolutely  impossible.  I  have  shown  that  if,  as  you  state,  there 
can  be  no  sin  without  an  explicit  knowledge  of  the  law,  it  direct- 
ly follows,  tliat  without  the  same  knowledge,  there  can  be  no 
holiness.  And  I  think  you  will  admit  that  the  arginnent  is  strictly 
a  fortiori.  For  if  it  is  clear  that  the  law  of  God  must  be  known, 
in  order  to  its  being  transgressed,  it  is  still  more  clearly  needful 
to  be  known  in  order  to  its  being  obeyed.     If,  then,  holiness 


21 

consists  in  obedience  or  conformity  to  the  law,  and  if  regener- 
ation consists  in  restoring  human  beings  to  hoHness,  it  follows  that 
the  infant  mind,  being  incapable  of  a  knowledge  of  the  law,  is 
equally  incapable  of  being  regenerated. 

1  must  touch  one  point  farther.  Yoti  explicitly  declare  that 
infants,  if  saved  at  ail,  must  be  saved  by  Christ.  But  in  what 
sense  are  they  saved  by  Christ  ?  Does  he  make  atonement  for 
them?  This  you  deny.  He  does  not  make  atonement,  you 
say,  (p.  47,)  "  for  their  actual  s'm,  for  the  simple  reason  that  they 
have  committed  none;  and  atonement  for  a  non-entity  is  impos- 
sible." The  doctrine  of  original  sin  you  discard.  From  these 
principles  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  infants  are  not  sinners  in 
any  sense.  But  for  this,  we  are  not  left  to  mere  inference. 
You  have  very  intelligibly  signified  (p.  41,)  that  "  children  can- 
not be  characterized  as  sinners  in  any  sense  which  comports 
with  Viiringa's  definition  of  sin  " — and  this  you  contend  is 
the  true  definition.  This  is  going  far  indeed.  But  must  you 
'not  go  farther  siill  ?  Must  yuu  not  prepare  fur  these  spotless 
beings — saved,  but  not  from  sin — saved  without  atonemetit — 
saved  without  a  real  regeneration — saved,  indeed,  without  sal- 
vation, an  appropriate  50J7O-,  and  a  very  different  song,  from  that 
which  has  hitherto  echoed  through  the  arches  of  heaven  ?  For 
how  is  it  possible  that  the  beings  described  can  unite  in  the  hum- 
ble, soul-stirring  acknowledgment  "  to  Him  who  loved  us,  and 
?vashed  us  ftoni  our  sins  in  his  own  blood  ? " 


LETTER    VII. 

the  theory  compared   with  the  publicly  avowed  opinions 
of  its  author. theology  of  new-england. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

The  stage  of  the  discussion  at  which  I  have  arrived,  admon- 
ishes me  to  subject  your  theory  to  one  additional  test ;  to  com- 
pare it,  I  mean,  with  your  own  publicly  avowed  opinions.  It  is 
known  to  the  Churches  of  New-Eniiland,  and  to  the  community, 
that  you  have  solemnly  declared  your  faith  in  the  doctrines  of 
the  gospel,  as  expressed  in  the  Shorter  Catechism  of  the  West- 


22 

minster  Assembly.  Of  course  the  expectation  has  been  exten-» 
sively  cherished,  that  your  instructions  as  a  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel, and  as  one  employed  in  preparing  future  ministers  for  the 
churches,  would  be  in  accordance  with  the  principles  embraced 
in  the  instrument  mentioned  above.  ' 

Concerning  this  celebrated  formulary,  I  may  remark,  that  no 
enlightened  mind  attaches  to  it  either  inspiration,  or  infallibility, 
or  perfection.  By  a  great  portion  of  the  most  judicious  and  im- 
partial, it  has  been  regarded  as  a  plain,  faithful,  and,  generally 
speaking,  felicitous  exposition  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  Revel- 
ation. 

Its  views  of  human  depravity  and  guilt  will  be  found  in  the 
following  quotations. 

"  The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam  not  only  for  himself, 
but  for  his  posterity ;  all  mankind  descending  from  him  by  or- 
dinary generation,  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him,  in  his  first 
transgression." 

"The  sinfulness  of  ihat  state  whereinlo  man  fell,  consists  in  the 
guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  original  righteousness,  and 
the  corruption  of  his  whole    nature,   which  is  commonly  called 
original  sin;  together  with  all  actual  transgressions  which  pro-' 
ceed  from  it." 

If,  to  some,  a  portion  of  these  expressions  may  seem  strong, 
and  even  exaggerated,  {ew  will  deny  that  these  very  expressions 
receive  much  countenance  from  the  language  of  Scripture. 
While  they  represent  all  the  posterity  of  Adam  as  "sinning  in 
him,"  and  "  falling  with  him,"  the  Bible  declares,  in  its  own 
simple  and  energetic  language,  that  "  in  Adam  all  die."  In  both 
cases,  doubtless,  there  is  metaphor.  And  in  both,  there  is  a 
solemn  and  appalling  meaning.  In  regard  to  the  phrase,  "guilt 
of  Adam's  first  sin,"  it  is  well  known  that  many  great  divines 
have  considered  guilt  as  intending  simply  exposure  or  liability 
to  punishment ;  and  this,  either  for  one's  own  sin,  or  that  of 
another.  Dr.  Watts,  who  was  certainly  no  bigot,  remarks  on 
the  expression  in  view,  that  it  must  at  least  signify  our  interest  in 
that  sin,  so  far  as  to  be  exposed  to  pain  and  suffering  on  account 
of  it.  And  you  yourself,  my  dear  Sir,  readily  admit  that 
Adam's  sin  has  actually  brought  on  his  posteiity  the  bitterest 
consequences,  and  even  exposed  them  to  everlasting  ruin. 
Thus  it  appears  that  this  expression,  so  startling  in  the  view  of 
some,  and  so  much  denounced  by  others,  is  susceptible,  and  not 
unnaturally  susceptible,  of  a  construction  from  which  kvi  who 
believe  the  Scripture,  can  dissent. 


23 

But  I  forget  that  it  belongs  to  you,  rather  than  to  myself,  to 
defend  the  venerable  Assennbly  in  this  case.  Still  I  am  under 
the  necessity  of  subjoining  the  following  quotations  from  your 
Essay. 

"  The  advocates  for  native  sin  do  not  seem  to  me  to  be  sufficiently 
aware,  that  with  the  very  same  principles  of  interpretation  which  they 
defend,  and  carry  into  practice,  conclusions  might  be  made  out  from  the 
Scriptures,  exceedingly  diverse  from  those  which  they  undertake  to  es- 
tablish, or  would  be  willing  to  admit."     pp.  38,  39. 

"  I  do  not  believe  in  the  expediency  or  propriety  of  making  hvo  sorts 
of  sin."     p.  49. 

"That  thing  in  the  Saviour,  and  in  Adam,  which  was  not  sin,  when 
existing  in  one  degree,  is  not  sin  when  existing  in  ten  degrees  or  more 
at  the  present  day,  in  all  of  our  race,  while  in  their  native  state  or  condi- 
tion."    p.  51. 

"  If  our  native  propensities  are  themselves  a  sin,  then  the  conclusion 
seems  to  be  plain  and  inevitable,  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin."     p.  52. 

"Even  in  this  inferior,  fallen,  degraded  condition,  sin,  in  the  proper 
sense  of  this  word,  viz.  a  voluntary  transgression  of  divine  law  by  a  ra- 
tional, moral  and  free  agent,  is  not  a  thing  in  its  own  nature  necessary, 
nor  strictly  inevitable.  It  can  be  committed  only  by  an  act  of  choice, 
p.  56. 

"  What,  after  all  that  has  been  said  and  written  on  the  subject  of 
original  sin,  has  been  satisfactorily  advanced  to  show  that  the  Scriptures 
recognize  two  sorts  of  sin  ?     p.  57. 

"  What  kind  of  a  sin  is  it,  which  admits  of  neither  contrition  nor 
amendment?"    p.  57. 

"It  (i.  e.  original  sin)  is  plainly  a  sin,  if  it  be  one,  which  no  effort,  no 
prayer,  no  repentance,  no  amendment  of  life,  no  elevated  piety,  no  con- 
formity to  God,  can  in  any  manner  abate,  change,  or  avoid.  It  is  one, 
therefore,  with  which  practical  and  experimental  piety  would   seem  to 

have  little  or  nothing  to  do Our   guilt  as  to  actual  sin  ....  is 

all  that  we  are  practically  concerned  with,"  &c.  &c.     p.  62. 

"  The  reprobation  topic  of  the  early  Reformers has  been  going 

by  degrees  out  of  the  circle  of  topics  in  the  later  theology,  or  if  handled 
at  all,  it  is  treated  with  much  circumspection  and  moderation.  Along 
with  this,  a  sin  which  is  no  sin,  i.  e.  no  transgression  of  any  law,  has  been 
gradually  disappearing  also.  Both  views,  in  due  time,  will,  as  I  fully  be- 
lieve, diappear  from  the  horizon  of  current  theology,  and  be  considered 
only  as  belonging  to  the  history  of  the  past.  The  progress  of  sentiment 
is  a  pledge  of  this."    p.  62. 

These  quotations  T  have  introduced  with  some  reluctance, 
and  shall  pass  with  very  little  comment.  It  would  be  obviously 
gratuitous,  though  perf{;ctly  easy,  to  show  how  materially  they 
disagree  with  the  Westminster  formulary.  Nor  would  it  be 
less  a  work  of  supererogation  to  demonstrate  that  the  framers  of 
that  instrument  had  no  idea  of  a  corruption  which  has  no  moral 


24 

evil  in  it,  nor  of  a  depravity  which  is  innocent,  nor  of  an  original 
sin  which  (to  use  your  own  emphatic,  though  unguarded  expres- 
sion,) is  no  sin.     But  I  forbear. 

1  must,  however,  remark,  and  with  all  freedom,  that  T  think 
you  rather  unceremonious  with  those  ministerial  brethren  who 
are  backward  to  adopt  your  present  views  on  the  subject  in 
question.  They  may  have  great  respect  for  your  learning  and 
talents.  Nor  is  it  impossible  that  this  very  respect  may  have 
lent  its  aid  to  confirm  them  in  their  old-fashioned  sentiments. 
For  certainly  there  was  a  period  when  they  contemplated  you 
as  pledged  to  maintain  and  vindicate  the  very  same  views  ;  and 
they  rejoiced  in  the  thought  that  your  fine  powers  and  acquisi- 
tions were  enlisted  in  the  defence  of  what  they  deemed  impor- 
tant gospel  truth.  The  tnovements  of  tiieir  minds  may,  like- 
wise, be  less  rapid  than  yours.  And  does  not  this  afford  a  natu- 
ral exercise  for  your  patience  and  candor?  Perliaps,  too,  they 
may  perceive  in  your  theory  less  of  maturity  than  it  may  here- 
after attain,  and  may  therefore  think  it  safe  and  expedient  to 
wait  for  such  an  issue.  Indeed,  they  may  view  it  as  among 
conceivable  possibilities  that  you  may  abandon  your  present  the- 
ory for  another  not  less  questionable.  In  this  case,  it  will  be 
surely  an  unpleasant  dilemma,  to  find  themselves  compelled 
either  id  forsake  tlieir  guide,  or  to  follow  him  in  the  dark. 

In  a  word,  my  dear  Sir,  I  cannot  but  apprehend  you  are  far 
too  sanguine  in  anticipating  the  speedy  disappearance  of  the  doc- 
trine in  debate — the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Unquestionably, 
it  is  one  of  the  grand  pillars  on  which  the  Andover  Institution 
rests.  Can  that  which  was  true  in  1808,  be  false  in  1839? 
Rather  let  me  ask,  can  a  doctrine  wliich  the  church  of  Christ, 
from  its  first  existence,  has  defended  with  such  energy,  and 
cherished  with  such  ardor,  be  ever  blotted  out  and  lost.  I  have 
confidence  that  it  will  not.  Nor  will  I  resign  the  hope  that  you 
yourself  may  yet  be  foimd  among  its  friends  and  champions. 

There  is  one  topic  upon  which  I  must  emphatically  express 
my  surprise.  You  seem  utterly  unaware  that  any  essential 
errors  are  abroad  in  the  church,  and  indeed,  that  any  novel  opin- 
ions of  considerable  importance  have  been  broached  in  our  day. 
On  my  part,  I  will  admit  that,  many,  if  not  most  of  the  religious 
theories  of  the  time,  which  make  pretensions  to  novelty,  ar-e  but 
resurrections  of  ancient  and  long-buried  errors.  But  that  false 
opinions  in  religion  abound,  some  in  a  form  of  arrogance,  others 
of  insinuation,  and  a  third  class  assuming  each  form  alternately, 


25 

according  to  circumstances,  is,  I  think,  undeniable.  As  you  are 
a  careful  observer  of  human  nnture,  I  have  no  doubt  you  will 
readily  grant  me  one  point.  There  is  danger,  real  and  great 
danger,  lest  those  very  attempts  which  have  been  made  to  sup- 
press error,  and  which  to  many  appear  unauthorized  and  unjust, 
should  excite  prejudice  against  the  truth.  That  the  opposition 
made  to  the  progress  of  false  principles,  is  generally  factitious, 
or  needless,  the  offspring  of  an  overbearing  or  litigious  spirit,  I 
cannot  believe.  Least  of  all  can  I  believe  that  the  debate  which 
is  now  pursued  by  two  very  considerable  parties  in  the  Chris- 
tian church,  on  the  subject  of  native  depravity,  is  a  debate  of 
small  importance. 

That  you  should  consider  yourself  as  contending,  in  this  de- 
bate, for  what  may  be  properly  called  New  England  views  of 
theology,  as  you  seem  to  intimate,  p.  268,  is  to  me,  not  only 
surprising,  but  astonishing.  The  very  reverse  of  this,  I  think,  is 
evident  and  undeniable.  If,  however,  you  demand  my  reasons, 
let  me  offer  a  very  brief  statement. 

If,  among  the  great  and  good  men  who  have  blessed  New 
England,  in  the  course  of  the  last  hundred  years,  there  was  one, 
who,  more  than  any  other,  gave  a  character  and  stamp  to  its  the- 
ology, it  was  doubtless  the  first  President  Edwards.  To  almost 
every  important  subject  in  religion,  he  gave,  in  its  turn,  his  mas- 
terly mind  and  pen.  Among  the  topics  which  engaged  his  spe- 
cial attention,  was  that  of  original  sin.  He  defended  the  doc- 
trine, as  you  know,  against  Dr.  John  Taylor,  a  celebrated  cham- 
pion of  Arminianism  and  Socinianism  in  England  ;  and  his  de- 
fence, though  characterized  by  some  minor  peculiarities,  is 
grounded  on  the  grand  principles  of  orthodoxy.  You  have  dis- 
cussed the  same  subject  in  nearly  eighty  pages  ;  and  if  I  have 
any  understanding  of  your  drift  and  meaning,  you  agree  much 
more  nearly  with  Taylor,  than  with  Edwards.  You  certainly 
dissent  from  Edwards  on  the  grand  and  vital  point  of  his  argu- 
ment, namely,  that  the  propensity  to  transgression  which  is  found 
in  all  human  beings,  is  an  evil,  depraved,  sinful  propensity.  Nor 
is  it  less  certain  that  you  adopt,  and  endeavor  to  enforce,  not  a 
few  of  the  very  same  objections  against  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  which  are  employed  by  Taylor  on  the  subject.  Such  being 
the  case,  I  am  utterly  unable  to  perceive  the  validity  of  your 
claim,  as  the  professed  champion  of  New  England  divinity. 
The  fact,  I  would  hope  and  believe,  is  entirely  the  reverse.  At 
least,  you  can  then,  and  then  only,  prove  that  you  speak  the  sen- 
4 


26 

timents  of  the  Christians  and  ministers  of  New  England,  when 
yoii  shall  prove  that  the  Christians  and  ministers  of  New  Eng- 
land have  abandoned  the  views  of  Edwards. 


LETTER   VIII. 

objections  against  native  depravity  considered. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

To  your  objections  against  the  doctrine  of  native  depravity,  I 
will  now  pay  a  brief  attention  ;  not,  however,  without  one  or  two 
prefatory  remari<s. 

When  a  doctrine  claims  to  be  drawn  directly  from  the  Scrip- 
ture, and  has  clearly  established  this  claim,  all  objections  against 
it  are  out  of  place.  The  reason  is  equally  obvious  and  conclu- 
sive. Such  objections  must  necessarily  be  false.  They  may 
be  plausible  and  imposing,  and  they  may  seem  unanswerable. 
Still  ihey  are  false.  If  we  may  not  consider  the  word  of  God  as 
sufficient  to  settle  any  point,  however  previously  doubtful  or  dis- 
puted, we  may  as  well  close  the  book  at  once.  We  are  all  of 
us  in  the  habit  of  believing  a  multitude  of  truths  concerning 
which  we  must  confess  ourselves  unable  to  refute  every  objec- 
tion which  ingenuity  or  sophistry  could  bring  against  them.  On 
no  other  terms  could  the  business  of  common  life  proceed,  even 
for  a  day.  And  shall  we  stumble  at  those  truths  of  religion 
which,  however  plausibly  opposed,  still  come  to  us  with  the  force 
of  demonstration,  and  the  stamp  of  heaven? 

But  truth  shuns  not  the  light.  It  shrinks  from  no  test  to  which 
it  can  be  fairly  brought.  To  your  principal  objections  in  the 
present  case,  I  will  attempt  a  brief  reply. 

You  allege  the  Saviour's  declaration  (Mat.  18,  3.)  "Verily  I 
say  unto  you,  except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  chil- 
dren, ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;"  and  ap- 
parently to  prove  that  little  children  are  sinless ;  for  you  inquire 
afterwards,  "  What  parent,  what  guardian  of  little  children  ever 
thought  of  taxing  them  with  crime,  or  of  alleging  real  sin,  as  a 
matter  with  which  they  stood  chargeable?"  Butyou  well  know 
that  most  divines,  and  most  intelligent  readers,  have  viewed  this 


27 

passage  as  simply  signifying  that  children  are  comparatively 
harmless  ;  and  that  in  their  infantile  state,  the  usual  exhibitions 
of  pride,  ambition,  &;c.  are  not  witnessed.  But  this  is  no  proof 
that  they  have  not  the  seminal  princi|)les  of  these  evils.  And 
this  is  clearly  itnplied  in  your  own  remarks.  *'  'J'he  Saviour," 
you  say,  "  refers  to  them  as  examples  of  persons  in  whom  the 
wicked  passions  are  yet  quiet,  inactive,  unexerted,  undeveloped, 
and  who  therefore  commit  no  actual  or  active  sin."  Do  not 
these  expressions  obviously  imply  that  the  radical  principles  of 
such  wicked  passions  exist  in  them,  an  I  will  in  due  time  be  de- 
veloped. This  admission  of  yours  is  all  whirh  the  advocates  of 
naiive  depravity  require.  Perhaps  the  adn^ission  itself  is  an  ex- 
emplification of  the  maxim  which  you  have  quoted  from  Horace 
(though  not  with  your  usual  accuracy,) 

Naturam  expellas  furca,  tamen  usque  recurret. 

There  is  another  remark,  too  important  to  be  omitted.  While 
illustrating  the  estimate  which  the  God  of  heaven  places  upon 
little  children,  you  quote  the  Saviour's  declaration  (v.  10)  "I 
say  unto  you,  that  in  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the 
face  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven  "  And  had  you  proceed- 
ed to  the  very  next  verse,  you  would  have  found  him  saying, 
"  For  the  Son  of  man  is  come  to  save  that  which  was  lost.''^ 
Here,  then,  in  the  very  same  passage  in  which  the  Saviour 
speaks  in  terms  of  such  tenderness  concerning  cl)ildren,  he  de- 
clares that  they  are  lost.  Of  the  meaning  and  force  of  this  tei  tn, 
as  used  in  Scripture,  you  are  well  awaie.  It  intends  nothing 
less  than  a  state  of  moral  depravity  and  ruin. 

I  now  pass,  with  some  reluctance,  to  consider  another  objec- 
tion. It  is  this  :  that  if  our  native  propensities  are  sinful,  the 
conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin.  In  avow- 
ing my  reluctance  to  meet  this  objection,  1  do  not  admit  that  it 
is  either  pertinent  or  formidable.  My  grief  is,  to  meet  it  pos- 
sessed of  your  sanction.  That  it  has  been  the  favorite  resort  of 
thousands  of  infidels,  of  errorists,  and  impenitent  self-jusiifiers, 
you  know  full  well.  And  though  1  do  not  suspect  you  of  in- 
tending {o  give  encouragement  to  these  unhappy  beings,  1  am 
not  the  less  convinced  that  they  will  take  it.  Every  individual 
of  either  of  these  classes  who  reads  your  pages,  will  find  a  pa- 
tronage which  he  never  enjoyed  before,  and  probably  never  an- 
ticipated. 

het  me  say,  in  the  first  place,  suppose  the  objection  could  not 
be  satisfactorily  met  and  answered  ;  what  then  ?     You  will  ad- 


28 

mlt  that  there  are  many  truths,  or,  if  you  will  allow  the  ex- 
pression, duplicates  of  truths,  which  have  never  yet,  by  any  arts 
of  retisoning,  been  saiisfactorily  reconciled.  You  believe  in  the 
universal  agency  of  God,  and  the  entire  dependence  of  man,  as 
it  regards  every  action,  word,  thought,  volition  and  feeling.  You 
equally  believe  in  the  perfect  liberty,  and  undiminished  responsi- 
bility, of  yourself  and  your  fellow-beings.  But  your  powerful 
mind  has  never  yet  removed  the  darkness,  the  apparent  incon- 
sistency, which  hover  around  these  seemingly  incompatible  truths. 
How  easy  to  draw  from  the  perfect  benevolence,  holiness  and 
power  of  God,  an  argument  apparently  conclusive  and  unan- 
swerable, that  in  a  universe  of  his  creation,  neither  sin  nor  mis- 
ery can  possibly  exist.  Yet  in  despite  of  this  seeming  demon- 
stration, we  have  but  to  open  our  eyes,  to  perceive  that  sin  and 
misery  exist ;  and  we  have  but  to  believe  the  Bible,  to  learn  that 
they  will  exist  to  eternity. 

The  point  to  which  I  come  is  this.  If  two  doctrines,  or  facts, 
seemingly  incompatible,  meet  us  in  the  book  of  God,  we  are  not  to 
institute  a  quarrel  between  them,  nor  to  take  sides  with  one 
against  the  other  ;  but  cordially  to  receive  them  both,  believing 
that  the  inconsistency  is  of  our  own  making — imaginary  and  not 
real.  Nor  is  there  any  other  method  in  which  we  can  possibly 
treat  the  Bible  with  the  respect  which  it  claims. 

In  the  present  case,  you  believe  that  if  our  native  propensities 
are  sinful,  it  follows  of  necessity  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin. 
But  on  this  point,  thousands  of  great  and  good  minds,  thousands 
of  reasoning  and  philosophic  minds,  are  against  you.  And  if  the 
great  mass  of  the  Christian  chun^h,  from  the  earliest  times,  has 
rightly  interpreted  the  sacred  records,  the  word  of  God  is  against 
you. 

You  doubtless  recollect  the  reply  of  an  Apostle  to  an  ancient 
objector  ;  and  this,  in  a  case  which  has  many  points  of  similarity 
to  that  under  consideration.  "Who  art  ihou,  O  man,  that  re- 
pliest  against  God  ?  Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that 
formed  it,  why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?  "  Should  you,  for  a 
moment,  suppose  that  the  doctrine  you  have  impugned,  is  true, 
you  would  of  course  believe  that  every  objection  raised  against 
it,  merits  as  little  deference,  and  would  meet  from  the  Apostle, 
were  he  alive,  a  similar  rebuke. 

But  though  we  may  not  arrogantly  object,  in  a  case  so  awfully 
profound,  we  may,  at  least,  humbly  inquire.  And  is  it  not  a 
question  worthy  of  your  serious  consideration,  whether  the  ob- 


29 

jection  you  have  introduced,  is  not  a  pure  mistake  ;    a  flagrant 
petiiio  principii  ? 

President  Edwards,  the  powerful  and  unbending  advocate  of 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  repelled  wiih  utmost  decision  the 
thought  that  this  doctrine  makes  him  who  is  the  Author  of  our 
being,  the  Author  of  our  depravity.  Permit  me  to  commend 
the  language  which  he  holds  on  this  subject  to  your  serious 
and  candid  consideration.  "  To  account,"  says  he,  "  for  a  sin- 
ful corruption  of  nature,  yea,  a  total  native  depravity  of  the 
heart  of  man,  there  is  not  the  least  need  of  supposing  any  evil 
quality  infused,  implanted,  or  wrought  into  the  nature  of  man  by 
any  positive  cause  or  influence  whatever,  either  from  God  or  the 
creature  ;  or  of  supposing  that  man  is  conceived  and  born  with 
z  fountain  of  evil  in  his  heart,  such  as  is  any  thing  properly  pos- 
itive   The   absence  of  positive    good   principles, 

and  so  the  withholding  of  a  special  divine  influence  to  impart 
and  maintain  those  good  principles,  leaving  the  common  natural 
principles  of  self-love,  natural  appetite,  &c.  (wiiich  were  in  man 
in  innocence)  leaving  these,  I  say  to  themselves,  without  the 
government  of  superior  divine  principles — will  certainly  be  fol- 
lowed by  the  corruption,  yea,  the  total  corruption  of  the  heart, 
without  occasion  for  any  positive  influence  at  all."  In  a  subse- 
quent passage,  having  referred  to  those  unhappy  beings  who  are 
abandoned  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  given  up  to  vile  affections 
and  lusts,  he  thus  reasons  :  "  Now  if  the  contivuance  of  sin,  and 
its  increase  and  prevalence,  may  be  in  consequence  of  God's 
disposal,  by  withholding  his  grace,  that  is  needful,  under  such 
circumstances,  to  prevent  it,  without  God's  being  the  Author  of 
that  continuance  and  prevalence  of  sin  ;  then,  by  parity  of  rea- 
son, may  the  being  of  sin,  in  the  case  of  Adam,  be  in  conse- 
quence of  God's  disposal,  by  withliolding  his  grace,  needful  to 
prevent  it,  without  his  being  the  Author  of  that  being  of  sin. ^^ 

He  adds  afterwards :  "  That  the  posterity  of  Adam  should  be 
born  without  holiness,  and  so  with  a  depraved  nature,  comes  to 
pass  as  much  by  the  established  course  of  nature,  as  the  contin- 
uance of  a  corrupt  disposition  in  a  particular  person,  after  he 
once  has  it ;  or  as  much  as  Adam's  continuing  unholy  and  cor- 
rupt, after  he  had  once  lost  his  holiness." 

Such  are  the  suggestions  and  reasonings  of  one  who  has  been 
considered  by  the  best  judges  on  either  side  of  the  Atlantic,  an 
able  reasoner,  a  profound  philosopher,  and  a  truly  scriptural  di- 
vine.   I  am  aware  that  you  freely  and  repeatedly  charge  him  with 


30 

inconsistency.  But  perhaps  the  charge  is  more  easily  preferred 
than  proved.  Others,  who  have  studied  his  treatise  on  the  sub- 
ject in  question  with  great  care,  have  found  it  replete  with  sober, 
discririiinaiive  thought,  and  sound  reasoning  ;  and  have  regard- 
ed the  Author,  with  some  few  exceptions,  as  an  eminently  safe 
and  scriptiu'al  guide. 

But  suppose  that  we  turn  our  back  on  Edwards,  and  on  all 
our  ancient,  long-tried,  and  long-trusted  guides.  Suppose  that, 
abandoning  the  road  w[)ich  has  been  trodden  by  the  muliitude 
of  the  faithful,  for  eighteen  centuries,  we  follow  some  modern 
theorist  into  liis  labyrimh  ;  can  you  secure  us  from  being  lost  in 
its  endless  mazes  .''  Should  we  even  surrender  ourselves  to  your 
own  favorite  theory,  may  it  not  possibly  conduct  us  to  the  same 
"yawning  gulf"  from  which  you  shrink  with  so  much  horror? 
You  greatly  mistake,  my  dear  Sir,  if  you  think  that  the  orthodox 
scheme  of  human  depravity  is  the  only  scheme  encumbered  with 
difficulties.  Difficulties  of  the  most  appalling  kind  throng  around 
your  own.  In  the  very  point  where  it  confidently  promises  to 
give  us  relief,  it  gives  us  no  relief  at  all.  While  it  confesses  that 
the  race  is  suffering  in)mense  and  infinite  evils  through  its  first 
progenitor,  it  denies  that  constituted  connection  which  alone  es- 
tablishes and  illustrates  the  equity  of  such  a  procedure.  It  en- 
dues every  individual  of  the  human  family  with  susceptibilities 
which  certainly  lead  to  sin,  and  only  to  sin  ;  and  these  very 
susceptibilities  it  traces  directly  to  the  creative  power  of  God. 
It  maintains  that  they  are  altogether  innocent ;  while  yet  it  main- 
tains that  they  exclude  their  subjects  from  heaven,  and  expose 
them  to  interminable  woe. 

There  is  another  difficulty  still,  and  of  the  most  serious  kind. 
You  advocate  a  species  oi  regeneration  altogether  novel  ;  a  re- 
generation loaded  with  the  same  odium  wliich  you  so  freely  charge 
on  that  of  your  opponents ;  a  regeneration  s\\\c\\y  physical.  For 
how  can  it  be  otherwise,  when  it  operates  on  the  innocent  sus- 
ceptibilities of  the  mind  ;  susceptibilities  which  are  essential  to 
the  human  being ;  susceptibilities  which,  as  you  state,  the  Saviour 
must  have  possessed,  or  he  could  not  have  been  properly  man  .'' 

And  when  shall  these  perplexities  cease?  When  shall  the 
inquiring,  anxious,  and  almost  tortured  mind  find  repose  ? — I 
answer,  then,  and  then  alone,  when  it  simply  repairs  to  the 
heavenly  oracle  ;  when  it  surrenders  itself  without  reserve  to  the 
teachings  of  infinite  wisdom.  The  Bible  lets  us  know  that  man 
is  his  own  destroyer  ;  that  the  race,  once  pure  and  holy,  has  be- 


31 

come  awfully  and  universally  degenerate  ;  that  this  degeneracy 
commenced  with  the  first  parent,  and  was  transmitted  by  him 
to  all  his  progeny  ;  and  that  God,  the  Author  of  our  being,  and 
the  Sovereign  Controller  of  our  destiny,  is  no;;  the  Author  of  our 
sin.  These  things  are  all  plain.  With  these  the  humble  Chris- 
tian is  content.  If,  beyond  these,  perplexities  and  troubles  arise, 
they  are  the  gratuitous,  self-inflicted  perplexities  and  troubles  of 
scholars  and  philosophers.  The  plain  good  man,  who  simply 
believes  his  Bible,  who  can  follow  where  it  leads,  and  pause 
where  it  stops,  effectually  escapes  them. 

There  is  one  point  of  no  small  importance,  which,  though 
perplexed  to  philosophy,  is  perfectly  plain  to  common  sense. 
To  this  point,  I  ask,  for  a  moment,  your  particular  attention. 
Your  scheme  takes  it  for  granted  that  no  propensities  or  disposi- 
tions which  are  born  with  us,  can  be,  properly  speaking,  sinful; 
and  that  for  such  propensities  or  dispositions,  no  man  can  condemn 
himself,  or  be  condemned  by  others.  I  cannot  but  apprehend 
that  on  a  moment's  consideration,  you  will  perceive  this  to  be 
an  entire  mistake. 

Take  a  man  who  is  avaricious,  or  impure,  or  malicious,  or 
revengeful.  What  do  we  require,  in  order  to  fasten  guilt  upon 
him,  but  the  simple  fact,  that  he  possesses  a  character  of  this 
kind  ?  When  was  it  ever  pleaded,  in  mitigation  of  the  guilt  of 
such  an  one,  that  he  possessed  and  exhibited  the  cliaracter  (ram 
childhood,  or  from  infancy,  or  that  his  father  was  so  before  him  ? 
On  the  contrary,  tlie  earlier  the  period  to  which  the  vice  can  be 
traced,  and  the  stronger  the  evidence  that  it  was  inborn  and  m- 
bred,  the  deeper,  in  the  general  estimation,  is  the  stain  of  guilt. 
If  two  men  have  been  equally  concerned  in  the  same  murder, 
and  one  only  is  to  be  selected  for  punishment,  will  not  the  selec- 
tion naturally  fall  on  him  who  gave  the  earliest  evidence  of  a 
malicious,  miu-derous  disposition  ?  These  are  principles  on  which 
the  sober  and  thinking  part  of  mankind  are  perfectly  agreed. 
And  nothing  is  requisite,  but  the  admission  of  these  principles, 
in  their  full  extent,  to  the  entire  subversion  of  your  theory.  For 
it  is  of  the  very  essence  of  that  theory,  that  native^  inbred  de- 
pravity is  a  thing  either  perfectly  innocent,  or  absolutely  impos- 
sible. 

1  perceive  that  my  remarks  are  in  danger  of  being  extended 
to  a  very  undesirable  length.  If,  hitherto,  I  have  been  some- 
what diffuse,  you,  my  dear  Sir,  who  are  well  acquainted  with  the 
difficulties  of  the  case,  will  indulge  me  your  candor.     In  what 


32 

remains,  I  shall  study  great  brevity.  And  as  the  leading  prin- 
ciples pertaining  to  the  subject  have  been  discussed,  I  hope  my 
attempt  inay  not  be  unsuccessful. 

You  seem  to  object  (p  58,)  to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
that  the  thing  itself  is  forbidden  by  no  law.  But  you  certainly 
will  not  deny  that  the  holy  and  unalterable  law  of  God  requires 
of  all  his  rational  creatures,  holiness  in  the  inward  part ;  holi- 
ness of  principle  and  disposition,  as  well  as  of  action  ;  holiness 
in  every  period  of  their  existence. 

The  objection  above  named,  you  follow  up  by  remarking ; 
"  It  has  often  been  said,  that  sin  inherent  is  z  punishment  for  the 
sin  of  Adam,  which  is  ours  by  imputation.''''  And  you  inquire  : 
"  If  the  sin  is  merely  putative,  would  not  a  common  law  of  jus- 
tice demand  that  the  punishment  should  be  merely  putative  ? 
How  can  we  unite,  as  par  cum  pari,  putative  crime  and  verita- 
ble danmation  ? — If,  in  these  suggestions,  your  object  was  to 
amuse  a  certain  class  of  readers,  you  have  probably  succeeded. 
But  the  subject  is  too  grave  for  ridicule.  It  is  difficult  to  meet 
a  sportive  remark  with  a  serious  reply.  I  therefore  refer  back 
the  whole  matter  to  your  more  solemn  and  chastised  reflections. 

Another  of  your  objections  against  original  sin  is,  that  none  of 
its  advocates  have  been  able  to  show  that  it  is  a  sin  which  can  be 
repented  of.  But  is  not  the  whole  force  of  this  objection  de- 
rived from  the  unnatural  use  of  a  term  ?  Suppose  that  in  the 
place  of  repentance,  you  substitute  humiliation.  Will  not  your 
objection,  in  this  case,  lose  even  its  plausibility  ?  And  here, 
permit  me  to  remark,  you  have  touched  a  point  of  great  practi- 
cal importance;  a  point  of  Christian  experience;  a  point  of 
fact ;  a  point  which,  I  am  constrained  to  say,  you  cannot  have 
considered  with  the  deep  attention  which  it  claims. 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  allege  the  experience,  fancied  or  real, 
of  an  individual,  in  opposition  to  any  established  principle  of 
truth.  Its  weight  would  be  lighter  than  a  feather.  But  the  ex- 
perience of  the  church  of  God,  of  the  pious,  the  heaven-taught, 
of  every  age  and  clime,  is  a  serious  affair.  You  cannot  dispose 
of  it  in  n  paragraph.  And  I  affirm  with  confidence,  that  the 
experience  of  the  church  of  God,  of  the  pious  of  every  age  and 
clime,  stands  in  direct  opposition  to  your  theory. 

Your  assertion  that  original  sin,  the  native  depravity  of  the 
heart,  is  a  thing  "  with  which  practical  and  experimental  piety 
would  seem  to  have  lilUe  or  nothing  to  do,"  needs  much  seri- 


33 

ous  re-consideration.  It  is  something  with  which  the  children 
of  God  in  every  age,  and  especially  the  most  devoted  and  pious 
among  them,  have  had  much,  very  much  to  do,  through  life,  to 
their  dying  day. 

The  language  of  David,  that  great  model  of  piety,  in  the 
fifty-first  psalm,  is  perfectly  explicit  and  intelligible.  It  is  a 
humble,  heart-broken  acknowledgment  of  native  corruption  ;  of 
deep,  inbred  depravity.  So  the  pious  of  every  age  have  viewed 
it.  And  they  have  found  in  it,  a  description  but  too  accurate,  of 
their  own  bitter  experience.  Their  hearts  have  echoed  in  re- 
sponse to  its  tones  of  sadness. 

The  complaints  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  the  seventh  chapter 
to  the  Romans,  I  am  constrained  to  consider  as  of  the  same 
general  character.  Your  arguments,  designed  to  remove  this 
remarkable  chapter  out  of  the  pale  of  Christian  experience,  are 
more  ingenious  than  convincing.  The  most  learned  and  judi- 
cious divines  are  against  you.  And  those  plain  Christians  who 
have  little  to  guide  them,  but  the  dictates  of  common  sense,  and 
the  teachings  of  heavenly  wisdom,  will  continue,  as  before,  to 
receive  humiliation  and  comfort  from  the  experience  of  the  Apos- 
tle. Indeed,  I  think  you  have  committed  precisely  the  same 
mistake  here,  with  that  which  I  have  before  noted,  in  the  fifth 
chapter  of  the  epistle.  You  have  made  the  previous  discovery 
that  this  was  not  the  proper  time  and  place  for  the  introduction 
of  Christian  experience.  And  hence  you  have  argued  that  the 
Apostle's  explicit  and  strong  expressions  on  the  subject  (as  oth- 
ers have  viewed  them)  must  certainly  have  reference  to  some- 
thing else.  I  readily  admit,  my  dear  Sir,  the  importance  of  ac- 
curately marking,  in  the  sacred  writers,  their  design  and  scope, 
with  the  connection  and  bearing  of  the  points  introduced.  And 
you  will  as  readily  admit  that  this  is  an  affair  requiring  much  tact 
and  skill,  much  deep  reflection,  and,  I  will  add,  much  submission 
of  mind  to  the  holy  Oracles.  For  want  of  these  requisites, 
many  a  learned  Commentator,  apparently  in  pursuit  of  the  truth 
of  God,  has  embraced  a  cloud  :  and  while  he  has  excited  a 
smile  in  his  intelligent  readers,  has  sadly  misled  the  injudicious 
and  unreflecting. 

As  an  objection  against  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  you  urge 
the  fact,  that  "  its  advocates  are  far  from  being  agreed,  what 
sort  of  punishment  it  requires  or  deserves."  This  objection  you 
attempt  to  enforce  by  presenting  a  long  array  of  learned  divines, 
ancient  and  modern,  who  have  speculated  and  conjectured  vari- 
5 


34 

ously  on  the  subject,  and  most  of  them  not  very  wisely.  By 
most  of  your  readers,  you  will  be  considered  as  aiming,  in  this 
procedure,  to  throw  obscurity,  not  to  say  ridicule,  on  the  subject 
at  large.  But  let  me  seriously  ask  you,  where  is  the  doctrine 
in  the  whole  compass  of  theology,  which  can  stand  a  test  like 
this  ?  Where  is  the  truth,  however  clearly  stamped  with  the 
seal  of  Inspiration  itself,  which  has  not  given  occasion  to  the 
whims  and  vagaries,  even  of  learned  men  ?  To  me,  the  varie- 
ty of  opinions  you  have  detailed,  afford  one  instruction,  at  least. 
It  is  this  :  that  when  men  abandon  the  simple  guidance  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  undertake  to  explore  a  path  of  their  own — learning 
and  ignorance,  wisdom  and  folly,  stand  on  much  the  same  level. 
Our  only  real  wisdom  and  safety  lie  in  speaking  with  the  Bible, 
and  in  being  silent  with  the  Bible.  This  is  a  lesson  which  I 
have  been  learning  all  my  life  ;  and  I  respectfully  invite  my 
Christian  and  ministerial  brethren  to  learn  it  with  me. 

You  object  that  if  actual  sin  must  be  traced  to  a  predominant 
disposition  to  sin,  it  is  impossible,  on  this  principle,  to  explain 
the  sin  of  apostate  angels,  and  of  the  first  progenitor  of  our  race. 
Your  argument  seems  to  be,  that  if  the  angels  and  Adam  sinned 
without  this  disposition  or  propensity,  so  may  all  mankind.  But 
where  is  the  force  of  this  reasoning  ?  Are  not  the  cases  thus 
compared,  entirely  dissimilar  ?  The  apostasy  of  Adam  was  a 
single,  transient  event.  And  though  in  many  respects  inscruta- 
ble, it  certainly  does  not  need  to  be  accounted  for  by  any  fixed 
and  permanent  cause.  The  apostasy  of  the  angels  who  sinned, 
was  likewise,  in  a  sense,  a  single  and  transient  event ;  for  al- 
though great  numbers  were  involved,  they  all  apostatized  at  the 
same  period,  and,  as  it  may  well  be  supposed,  under  one  com- 
mon impulse.  This  event,  then,  requires  no  fixed  and  perma- 
nent cause  for  its  explanation.  But  how  entirely  different  from 
this  is  the  case  of  the  great  human  family.  Here  are  millions 
and  millions  of  beings,  successively  rising  into  existence,  in  all 
climes,  countries  and  ages,  and  all  pursuing  the  same  course  of 
disobedience  and  rebellion  against  their  Maker  and  Sovereign. 
Not  a  solitary  exception  occurs.  Now  for  this  uniform  and 
universal  effect,  must  there  not  be  assigned  a  cause  equally  uni- 
form and  universal  ?  If  all  these  countless  millions  are  under 
the  influence  of  one  common  inclination  or  propensity  to  evil, 
the  cause  inquired  for  is  discovered.  And  it  is  discovered  no 
where  else. 


35 

You  object  again,  that  the  theory  of  original  sin  "  maintains 
the  necessity  of  a  nature,  a  taste,  or  faculty,  which  is  physiolog- 
ically a  new  creation  by  the  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  regen- 
eration of  the  soul."  You  compel  me,  my  dear  Sir,  to  com- 
plain of  you  for  encumbering  our  very  simple  theory  with  so 
many  hard  words.  In  pointing  our  fellow-mortals  the  way  to 
heaven,  we  urge  on  them  the  necessity  of  a  neiv  heart,  or  a  new 
disposition,  such  as  God  alone  can  impart.  We  sometimes  de- 
scribe this  change  as  a  passing  from  death  to  life.  And  here, 
we  have  not  only  the  spirit,  but  the  letter  of  the  Scripture  on  our 
side.  The  idea  of  a  new  faculty  we  discard.  To  the  terms 
nature  and  taste,  in  this  connection,  we  have  no  bigoted  attach- 
ment, though  we  should  rejoice  that  all  our  beloved  iiearers 
should  "  taste  and  see  that  the  Lord  is  good;  "  nor,  indeed,  can 
we  be  content  unless  they  are  partakers  of  a  nature  not  only 
new,  but  divine.  As  to  the  terms  physiological,  or  psychological, 
in  reference  to  the  new  creation,  we  wish  to  address  plain  truth 
to  plain  understandings ;  and  we  therefore  let  these  hard  words 
alone.  But  we  claim  the  right  to  make  the  freest  use  of  the 
representations,  the  thoughts,  and  the  very  terms  of  Scripture, 
whoever  may  oppose,  or  whoever  pervert  them.  Non-,  my 
dear  Sir,  permit  me  to  ask,  do  you  not  yourself  pursue  the  same 
general  course  ?  Such,  I  know,  were  eminently  the  character- 
istics of  those  lucid,  energetic  and  evangelical  discourses  of 
yours,  to  vvhich  I  have  listened  with  delight,  in  years  that  are 
past.  And  such,  I  would  hope,  is  the  general  character  of  your 
preaching  now  ;  for  I  can  scarcely  conceive  that  to  change, 
would  be  to  improve  it.  Why,  then,  with  such  authorities,  and 
such  guides,  should  we  not  be  permitted  to  pursue  in  peace  our 
old-fashioned  and  straight-forward  way  of  preaching  ? 

You  object,  finally,  to  our  theory  of  depravity,  that  it  makes 
the  soul  a  kind  o{ moral ov psychological  machine;  and  you  have 
nmch  to  say  of  water-wheels  and  wind-wheels,  Sic.  But  these 
are  matters  which  somewhat  elude  my  comprehension.  And 
were  it  otherwise,  I  should  think  it  the  kindest  part  to  you,  to 
myself,  and  to  the  reader  of  these  pages,  to  pass  them  entirely 
in  silence. 


■36 


LETTER    IX. 

concluding  remarks  and  suggestions. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

In  ihe  preceding  letters,  I  have,  with  great  freedom  and  plain- 
ness, endeavored  to  detect  and  expose  what  I  cannot  but  regard 
as  important  errors  in  your  Essay.  I  have  likewise  attempted 
to  remove  your  leading  mistakes,  and  refute  your  principal 
objections,  in  reference  to  what  is  usually  considered  the  ortho- 
dox theory  of  human  depravity.  I  would  here  willingly  lay- 
down  my  pen.  But  the  great  importance  which  my  mind  at- 
taches to  the  subject,  constrains  me  to  offer  a  few  additional 
remarks. 

I  am  anxious,  in  the  first  place,  to  remove  an  impression  which 
your  Essay  seems  calculated  to  leave  on  the  minds  of  readers, 
and  which  I  think  equally  unjust  and  pernicious.  You  labor 
much  to  show  that  the  old  theory  of  depravity  is  at  war  with 
sound  reason  and  philosophy  ;  and  while  you  anticipate  its 
speedy  passage  to  oblivion,  you  would  have  us  think  that  it  is 
already  discarded  by  men  of  enlightened  and  liberal  minds. 
Your  representations  on  this  subject  need  much  correction. 
You  cannot  be  ignorant  that  many  of  the  ancient  heathen  phi- 
losophers and  poets  had  deeper  (I  had  almost  said,  more  scrip- 
tural) views  of  human  depravity,  than  some  modern  preachers. 

"  We  are  born,"  says  Seneca,  "  in  such  a  condition,  that  we 
are  not  subject  to  fewer  disorders  of  the  mind,  than  of  the  body. 
All  vices  are  in  all  men,  though  they  do  not  break  out  in  every 
one."     The  poet  Ovid  feelingly  exclaims, 

I  see  the  right,  and  I  approve  it  too, 
Detest  the  wrong,  and  yet  the  wrong  pursue. 

Is  not  this  the  complaint  of  one  who  feels  an  innate  hios  to  evil, 
overbearing  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  of  conscience  itself. -* 

While  I  am  grieved  to  see  some  Christian  divines  rejecting 
with  scorn,  what  I  firmly  believe  to  be  the  Scripture  doctrine  of 
man's  apostasy  and  depravity,  I  am  consoled  to  think  that  there 
are  great  and  eminent  statesmen  who  receive  it  in  simplicity,  and 
cherish  it  as  the  only  true   philosophy.     You  will  admit  that 


37 

WiLBERFORCE  vvas  110  bigot.  Listen  to  him,  if  you  please,  a 
moment,  and  then  judge  for  yourself  what  part  this  exalted  man, 
if  now  living,  would  take  in  the  great  contest  respecting  human 
depravity.  "  How,"  says  he,  "  on  any  principles  of  common 
reasoning,  can  we  account  for  it,"  (i.  e.  the  prevalence  of  un- 
godliness and  vice  in  the  world,)  "  but  by  conceiving  that  man, 
since  he  came  out  of  the  hands  of  his  Creator,  has  contracted  a 
taint,  and  that  the  venom  of  the  subtle  poison  has  been  commu- 
nicated through  the  race  of  Adam,  every  where  exhibiting  in- 
contestible  marks  of  its  fatal  malignity  ? "  And  afterward  ;  "  All 
other  solutions  are  unsatisfactory,  whilst  the  potent  cause  which 
has  been  assigned  does  abundantly  and  can  alone  sufficiently 
account  for  the  eifect.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  corruption  of 
human  nature  is  proved  by  the  same  mode  of  reasoning  as  has 
been  deemed  conclusive  in  establishing  the  existence,  and  ascer- 
taining the  laws  of  the  principle  of  gravitation  ;  that  the  doctrine 
rests  on  the  same  solid  basis  as  the  sublime  philosophy  of  New- 
ton ;  that  it  is  not  a  mere  speculation — an  uncertain  but  ingeni- 
ous theory — but  the  sure  result  of  large  and  actual  experiment, 
deduced  from  incontestable  facts,  and  still  more  fully  approving 
its  truth,  by  harmonizing  with  the  several  parts,  and  accounting 
for  the  various  phenomena,  jarring  otherwise  and  inexplicable,  of 
the  great  system  of  the  universe." 

I  cannot  more  properly  close  this  quotation,  than  by  repeating 
a  line  which  the  excellent  Author  borrows  from  the  great  Eng- 
lish Poet : 

How  charming  is  divine  philosophy  ! 

The  views  of  Wilberforce  on  the  subject  of  native  depravity, 
you  well  know,  were  substantially  the  views  of  the  great  multi- 
tude of  pious  and  learned  divines  of  the  two  last  centuries,  who 
were  lights  of  the  world  while  living,  and  whose  memory  is  eoi- 
balmed  in  the  hearts  of  the  pious.  They  were  the  views  of 
Owen,  and  Baxter,  and  Bates,  and  Howe,  and  Flavel,  and 
Watts,  and  Doddridge,  and  Scott.  They  were  the  views  of  Ed- 
wards, and  Bellamy,  and  Davies,  and  Dwight.  It  will  not  be  easy 
to  convince  the  world  that  these  men  were  shallow  reasoners,  or 
sour-minded  bigots ;  or  that  the  doctrine  which  they  laid  as  the 
foundation  of  solid  theology  and  vital  piety,  was  mere  fancy  and 
delusion. 

In  opposition  to  the  views  you  have  repeatedly  expressed,  I 
must  declare  my  decided  conviction  that  the  doctrine  in  ques- 


38 

tion  is  a  doctrine  of  fundamental  importance,  and  vital  to  the 
whole  scheme  of  theoretic  and  practical  Christianity.  If,  indeed, 
as  you  seem  to  suppose,  it  is  an  affair  of  mere  terminology,  then 
I  have  a  right  to  inquire,  why  so  much  zeal  for  a  new  terminol- 
ogy ?  If  no  new  doctrine  is  to  be  taught,  and  of  course,  no  new 
light  given,  why  should  mere  words  be  made  the  occasion  of 
convulsing  the  church,  and  pouring  contumely  on  its  ministers  ? 
Suppose  that  the  advocates  of  native  depravity  are  even  extreme- 
ly tenacious  of  the  old  phraseology,  believing  that  to  part  with  it, 
is  to  hazard  the  loss  of  scriptural  truth,  may  they  not  claim  the 
forbearance  of  their  brethren  in  opposition,  who,  upon  their  own 
principles,  can  allege  no  adequate  motive  for  imposing  a  new 
phraseology  ?  Must  a  sacrifice  be  made,  and  a  danger  incurred, 
without  the  shadow  of  compensating  advantage  ? 

But  that  this  is  a  mere  verbal  debate,  or  a  debate  of  small 
importance,  is  confidently  denied.  It  cannot  be  believed  that 
moral  purity  and  moral  impurity,  that  innocence  and  siri,  are 
convertible  terms. 

All  who  read  the  Bible  find  it  much  occupied  in  delineating 
the  character  of  man.  Most  readers  have  perceived  in  this  de- 
lineation, a  character  of  real,  sinful  depravity.  Others  assume 
the  position  that  this  depravity  is  innocent ;  and  they  are  very 
confident  that  a  doctrine  of  this  kind  will  answer  all  the  purposes 
of  religion.  But  are  they  sure  of  this  ?  May  they  not  mistake  ? 
May  not  that  which  they  declare  to  be  a  mere  modification  of 
a  truth,  be  a  real  denial  of  a  truth  ?  May  not  the  truth  thus 
denied  be  a  point  of  essential  importance  ?  May  it  not  have 
aspects  and  bearings  which  they  have  never  discovered,  nor  so 
much  as  suspected  ?  Such  is  the  infirmity  of  the  human  mind, 
that  no  man  who  denies,  or  expunges  from  his  system,  or  even 
modifies,  a  single  truth  of  Inspiration,  can  be  assured  that  he  is  not 
corrupting  the  ivhole  system  of  religion,  doctrinal  and  practical. 
What  a  tremendous  responsibility  does  he  then  assume — espe- 
cially if  the  truth  in  question  belongs  not  to  the  superstructure 
of  religion,  but  to  its  very  foundation.  Such  is  unquestionably 
the  case  with  the  doctrine  we  are  considering.  By  most  di- 
vines, and  by  most  Christians,  it  has  been  thought  hitherto,  that 
the  man  who  is  essentially  wrong  in  his  views  of  human  deprav- 
ity, can  be  right  nowhere  in  religion. 

A  word,  here,  on  the  subject  of  Pelagianism.  I  despise  the 
thought  of  confuting  a  system  by  affixing  to  it  a  bad  name.  The 
name  just  mentioned,  I  should  certainly  not  have  introduced,  had 


39 

not  you,  my  dear  Sir,  invited  it,  and  almost  made  it  necessary. 
You  disclaim,  for  your  system,  the  character  of  Pelagianisra. 
But  what  are  the  facts  ?  The  grand  question  respecting  human 
depravity  is  simply  this  ;  Is  it  native,  or  is  it  svjierinduced?  It 
is  not  native,  but  superinduced,  say  the  Pelagians.  The  same, 
precisely,  says  the  system  which  you  maintain. 

The  practical  bearing  of  the  system  in  view  is  too  plain  to  be 
mistaken.  On  this  subject,  let  us  listen  a  moment  to  the  Au- 
thor just  now  quoted.  Speaking  of  human  corruption,  he  says, 
"  It  is  here,  let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that  our  foundation  must  be 
laid  ;  otherwise  our  superstructure,  whatever  we  may  think  of  it, 
will  one  day  or  other  prove  tottering  and  insecure.  This  is 
therefore  no  metaphysical  speculation,  but  a  practical  matter. 
Slight  and  superficial  conceptions  of  our  state  of  natural  degra- 
dation, and  of  our  insufficiency  to  recover  from  it  ourselves,  fall 
in  too  well  with  our  natural  inconsiderateness,  and  produce  that 
fatal  insensibility  to  the  divine  warning  to  "  flee  from  the  wrath 
to  come,"  which  we  cannot  but  observe  to  prevail  so  generally." 

These  are  the  dictates  of  reason  and  common  sense.  If  the 
gospel  comes  to  us  as  the  grand  remedy  for  a  moral  malady, 
who  but  must  see,  that  not  only  our  estimate  of  its  worth,  but 
our  experience  of  its  sanative  power,  will  be  much  in  proportion 
to  our  sense  of  the  malignity  of  the  disease  ?  None  but  deep 
views  of  our  utter  and  awful  depravity  can  generate  real  humili- 
ty. And  humility  is  the  all  in  all  of  religion.  It  is  likewise  the 
only  soil  in  which  all  other  Christian  virtues  take  root  and  grow. 
A  religion  which  does  not  make  and  keep  us  humble,  is  no  re- 
ligion at  all,  A  religion  which  ministers  nutriment  to  our  pride,  is 
worse  than  none. 

What  the  great  Roman  Orator  says  of  the  liberal  arts,  is  true 
of  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  Christianity.  They  are  linked  to- 
gether by  a  common  bond.  Indeed,  the  mutual  connection  and 
dependence  are  far  closer  in  this  case,  than  in  the  former. 
Strike  from  the  Christian  system  a  single  link,  and  soon  the 
whole  chain  falls  asunder,  and  disappears.  Remove  the  radical 
depravity  of  the  heart,  and  you  have  no  place  for  any  other 
truths  of  the  gospel.  And  if  you  materially  modify  this  doctrine, 
you  soon  find  that  the  modifying  process  must^o  through.  Re- 
generation becomes  another  thing.  Repentance  assumes  a  new 
aspect.  The  Christian  conflict  is  dispensed  with.  The  atone- 
ment loses  half  its  value.  And  the  song  of  salvation  by  grace 
becomes  an  empty  sound. 


40 

Are  you  not  alarmed,  my  dear  Sir,  at  the  entire  revolution 
which  the  new  theory  respecting  original  sin  is  introducing  into 
the  whole  system  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  Christian  practice  ? 
Does  it  not  wrest  from  the  Supreme  Being  the  sovereign  con- 
trol over  his  own  world,  by  denying  that  he  could  have  exclu- 
ded sin  from  his  system  ;  by  denying,  too,  that  he  can  exercise 
any  such  influence  over  free  moral  agents,  as  will  effectually 
secure  them  from  disobedience  ?  Does  it  not  substitute  in  the 
place  of  a  change  of  heart,  a  mere  change  of  purpose  ;  a  change 
of  which  man  is  the  author,  rather  than  God  ?  Does  it  not, 
while  verbally  acknowledging  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
conversion,  reduce  that  agency  to  a  mere  suasive  influence,  and 
deny  its  direct  and  efficient  control  over  the  heart  ?  Does  it 
not,  by  discarding  the  fact  of  permanent  dispositions,  discard 
the  certainty  of  the  saints'  perseverance  ?  Does  it  not,  in  the 
same  way,  discard  that  inward,  spiritual  warfare  which  is  so 
much  the  uniform  experience  of  Christians  ?  Does  it  not  sub- 
vert the  doctrine  of  election,  by  resolving  it  into  a  mere  certainty 
in  the  mind  of  God,  whether  the  sinner  will  voluntarily  turn,  or 
voluntarily  persist  in  impenitence  ?  In  a  word,  does  it  not  divest 
the  Supreme  Being  of  his  sovereignty  and  omnipotence  in  the 
work  of  human  salvation,  and  almost  transfer  the  same  attributes 
to  man  ? 

I  might  speak  of  those  errors  of  the  scheme  which  are  more 
immediately  practical.  But  I  am  unwilling  to  enlarge  on  so 
painful  a  subject.  Still,  there  is  one  point  which  is  too  impor- 
tant to  be  omitted.  The  theory  in  question  lays  the  foundation 
of  all  moral  obligation  in  self-interest.  It  declares  that  "  of  all 
voluntary  action,  the  happiness  of  the  agent,  in  some  form,  is 
the  ultimate  end."  It  declares  that  "  self-love,  or  the  desire  of 
happiness,  is  the  primary  cause  or  reason  of  all  acts  of  prefer- 
ence or  choice,  which  fix  supremely  on  any  object."  A  most 
comfortable  doctrine  this,  to  every  sinner  upon  earth !  For 
where  is  the  sinner  who  does  not  love  himself?  Where  is 
the  sinner  who  does  not  desire  his  own  happiness  ?  But 
what  becomes  of  those  passages  of  Scripture,  so  continually 
recurring,  which  call  us  off  from  these  low  propensities  and  aims, 
and  which  place  all  real  virtue  in  supreme  love  to  God,  ^nd 
REGARD  to  HIS  GLORY  ?  And  what  follows,  but  that  the  princi- 
ple in  question  goes  directly  to  annihilate  all  moral  distinctions; 
to  reduce  the  good  and  the  bad  in  the  human  family  to  one  com- 
mon level ;  in  a  word,  to  banish  not  only  all  piety,  but  all  virtue 
from  the  world  ?     It  is  not  too  rpuch  to  say,  that  a  theory  em- 


41 

bracing  this  principle,  bears  instamped  on  its  very  front,  the  deep, 
indelible  brand  of  error  and  falsehood. 

These  strong  expressions,  my  dear  Sir,  are  the  result  of 
strong  and  decided  conviction.  To  have  said  less,  would  have 
been  treachery  to  the  dictates  of  my  understanding,  my  con- 
science, and  my  heart.  At  the  same  time,  I  am  far  from  in- 
dulging the  thought  that  the  error  just  mentioned,  has  been  adop- 
ted by  you.  Indeed,  I  must  cling  to  the  belief  that  many  of  the 
others  which  I  have  specified,  are  rejected  by  you,  as  cordially 
as  by  myself.  Still,  they  belong  to  a  system,  an  important  and 
fundamental  part  of  which,  you  have,  to  my  unspeakable  regret, 
undertaken  to  support. 

Nor  have  I  the  least  desire  to  cast  reproach  upon  others  who 
maintain  the  system  in  view.  Many  of  them  I  know  to  be  ami- 
able and  respectable  men — irreproachable  in  life,  and  apparent- 
ly devoted  to  the  cause  of  God,  and  the  interests  of  his  church. 
1  would  hope,  and  this  most  sincerely,  that  the  errors  of  their 
system  have  not  reached  their  hearts,  nor  incorporated  them- 
selves with  their  practical  judgment.  Many  of  them,  no  doubt, 
are  pursuing  an  object  which  appears  to  them  both  important 
and  practicable.  They  would  divest  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel 
of  what  have  been  regarded  as  their  harsher  features.  They 
would  disencumber  religion  of  what  has  been  repulsive.  By 
giving  to  the  one,  and  the  other,  a  modified  and  apparently  phi- 
losophic character,  they  would  recommend  them  to  a  more  gen- 
eral acceptance  than  they  have  hitherto  gained.  In  all  this,  it 
is  my  duty  to  judge  charitably  of  their  designs  ;  while  it  is  my 
right  to  consider  them  in  a  very  great  mistake.  All  history,  all 
observation,  all  experience,  unitedly  declare  that  every  attempt 
of  the  kind  has  proved  abortive.  The  doctrines  of  the  Bible 
are  altogether  imperious  and  unbending.  They  claim  to  be 
seen  by  their  own  light,  and  to  be  judged  by  their  own  evidences. 
They  require  from  all  an  implicit,  unquestioning  submission. 
They  hold  no  compromise,  either  with  the  demands  of  an  arro- 
gant philosophy,  or  the  demands  of  sin.  And  whenever  the 
professed  friends  of  truth  are  disposed  to  make  concessions,  it  is 
uniformly  found,  that  there  is  less  of  gratitude  for  what  is  yielded, 
than  of  discontent  at  what  is  withheld.  Every  concession  serves 
but  to  open  the  way  to  new  demands.  The  work  is  hopeless 
and  endless.  Shrewd  and  calculating  Unitarians  are  looking  on 
the  recent  experiment  with  deep  attention  and  interest.  They 
perceive  that  much  has  been  conceded.  But  they  demand 
6 


42 

much  more.  Indeed,  they  expect  much  more.  They  argue, 
and  with  no  httle  plausibility,  that  much  more  must  and  will  be 
conceded. 

While,  then,  I  impeach  not  the  motives  of  those  who  support 
the  theory  in  question,  and  while  I  unfeignedly  lament  their 
error,  it  is  both  natural  and  allowable  that  I  should  glance  at 
some  of  the  tendencies  of  the  theory  itself. 

It  affords  countenance  and  strength,  I  cannot  but  apprehend, 
to  infidelity  itself.  For  more  than  seventeen  centuries,  the 
world  has  been  blessed  with  the  Bible.  It  addresses  us  on  sub- 
jects of  everlasting  moment.  It  claims  to  speak  a  language  which 
all  may  understand.  But  according  to  the  theory  in  view,  its 
language  has  not  been  understood.  More  than  this,  even  on 
the  fundamental  points  of  religion,  it  has  been,  by  the  great  mass 
of  readers,  egregiously  misunderstood  and  misconstrued.  "  Can 
such  a  book,"  asks  the  infidel,  "  be  from  the  Father  of  lights — a 
book  which,  century  after  century,  has  been  pouring,  not  light, 
but  darkness  on  the  human  mind — a  book  which  has  not  only 
failed  of  its  design,  but  accomplished  the  direct  reverse  ? " — The 
objection  is  plausible,  at  least,  and  not  easily  answered. 

It  is  an  evil  reserved  for  our  day,  that  even  on  the  fundamen- 
tal points  of  religion,  ceaseless  and  acrimorious  debates  should 
arise  among  those  who  claim  to  be  evangelical  Christians. 
Modes  of  interpretation,  and  systems  of  theology,  both  leading 
to  the  most  opposite  results,  are  alternately  defended  and  assailed. 
The  church  becomes  an  arena  of  unholy  strife.  Christians  and 
Christian  ministers,  ranged  into  parties,  direct  against  each  other 
that  opposition  which  should  have  been  concentrated  against  the 
common  foe.  What  cause  of  self-congratulation  and  triumph 
does  this  afford  to  sceptics  and  infidels.  "  You  call  us,"  say 
they  to  Christians,  "  to  agree  with  you,  but  with  whom  shall  we 
agree  ?  You  call  us  to  believe  ;  but  what  shall  we  believe  ? 
We  find  that  doctrines  which,  twenty  years  since,  were  consid- 
ered as  undisputable,  are  now,  not  only  disputed,  but  denounced. 
And  how  do  we  know  that  the  doctrines  which  have  taken  their 
place,  may  not,  in  half  another  twenty  years,  share  the  same 
fate?" — Here  is  another  imposing  difficulty.  For  who  can 
expect  that  the  scepticism  and  infidelity  of  the  world  shall  cease, 
while  another  species  of  scepticism  and  infidelity  finds  a  place 
within  the  church  ? 

The  theory  in  view,  while  it  tends  to  strengthen  the  infidel, 
tends  not  less  to  confirm  many  of  the  irreligious  in  their  irapen- 


43 

itence.  And  here,  no  doubt,  I  shall  be  charged  with  an  egre- 
gious mistake.  "  Does  not  this  theory,"  it  will  be  asked,  "  pow- 
erfully urge  the  sinner  to  action  ?  Does  it  not  strip  him  of  the 
old'  plea  of  inability  ?  Does  it  not  rouse  him  from  the  torpor  of 
despondence  ?  Does  it  not,  by  promising  him  success,  furnish 
irresistible  motives  to  exertion  ?  And  is  it  not  a  fact,  that  it  has 
roused  thousands  of  our  countrymen  to  religion,  who,  under  the 
former  methods  of  instruction,  treated  it  with  entire  neglect  ? " 

To  these  questions,  there  is  an  obvious  reply.  Men  will  never 
be  truly  in  earriest  about  religion,  till  they  deeply  realize  their  own 
depravity.  Till  the  maladies  of  the  heart  are  seen  and  felt,  the 
divine  Physician  will  be  neither  prized  nor  sought.  Superficial 
views  of  sin  produce  nothing  but  superficial  conviction.  False 
views  of  sin  do  but  deepen  and  protract  the  fatal  slumber  of  the 
soul.  Never  does  the  sinner  welcome  and  embrace  the  Saviour, 
till,  convinced  of  his  guilt,  and  ruin,  and  helplessness,  he  is  re- 
duced to  a  species  of  self-despair. 

Such  are  the  j)rinciples  which  belong  to  the  case.  And  now 
what  are  the  facts'? 

For  years,  there  has  prevailed,  in  various  regions  of  our  coun- 
try, a  species  of  preaching  which  has  dealt  little  with  the  diffi- 
culties of  religion,  little  with  the  depravity  of  the  heart,  little  with 
the  sinner's  absolute  dependence  on  the  sovereign  mercy  of  God. 
He  has  been  urged  to  repentance  by  arguments  derived  princi- 
pally from  the  extreme  facility  of  the  work,  from  the  competen- 
cy of  his  own  powers,  and  the  certainty  of  success.  Such  in- 
structions have  produced  marked  effects  on  great  numbers,  who 
may  be  distributed  into  various  classes. 

The  first  class  is  that  of  those  who  have  gone  about  the  work 
with  some  earnestness,  and  with  greater  confidence  ;  have  dili- 
gently employed  means,  and  taken  some  real  pains  with  their 
own  hearts.  But  in  those  hearts,  unsuspected  reluctances,  un- 
conquerable aversions  were  soon  manifest.  The  unpleasant, 
hopeless  work  was  abandoned  ;  and  the  unhappy  beings,  disgust- 
ed with  themselves,  and  disgusted,  perhaps,  with  their  spiritual 
guides,  sunk  into  a  kind  of  sullen  despondence,  from  which  no 
ordinary  means  may  be  expected  to  rouse  them. 

A  second  class,  delighted  with  the  new  views  given,  of  the 
facility  of  the  work,  and  the  sufficiency  of  their  own  power  to 
accomplish  it,  have  found  in  these  views  an  effectual  shield,  both 
from  conviction  and  alarm.  Under  this  delusion,  they  have 
coolly  resolved  to  defer  the  unpleasant,  easy  affair  of  religion  to 


44 

^  more  convenient  season;  a  season  which  never  has  arrived, 
and  with  thousands  never  will. 

With  a  third  class,  the  new  mode  of  instruction  has  been  ap- 
parently more  successful.  Since  religion  has  been  promised  to 
their  efforts,  they  have  been  determined  not  to  fail  for  want  of 
them.  In  their  way,  they  have  been  animated,  diligent  and 
persevering.  The  result  of  all  has  been  a  religion  of  their  own 
making — a  religion  which  quiets  conscience,  and  banishes  fear — 
but  which  has  in  it  no  true  love  to  God,  no  genuine  repentance, 
no  faith  that  sanctifies  and  saves. 

But  is  there  not,  it  may  be  inquired,  a  fourth  class  ?  I  verily 
believe  there  is.  The  instruction  to  which  I  have  alluded,  though 
chargeable  with  essential  defects  and  errors,  has,  by  its  very 
novelty,  excited  attention.  Attention  has  led  to  inquiry  ;  and 
doubtless,  in  multitudes  of  instances,  to  serious,  anxious,  faithful 
inquiry.  The  inquirers  have  sought  instruction  from  the  word 
of  God,  and  from  the  Spirit  of  God.  And  what  they  sought,  they 
found.  Thus  by  the  wonderful  mercy  of  Him  whose  preroga- 
tive it  is  to  elicit  light  from  darkness,  and  to  bring  the  blind  by 
a  way  which  they  knew  not,  they  have  been  safely  and  effectu- 
ally guided  to  Christ,  and  to  a  life  of  piety. 

Still,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  this  new  species  of  instruction 
is,  in  itself  considered,  a  source  of  infinite  peril  to  the  souls  of 
men,  and  a  dire  calamity  to  the  church.  It  would  be  prepos- 
terous indeed  to  believe  that  ordinarily  the  preaching  of  error 
will  prove  so  much  as  the  occasion  of  leading  men  into  truth  ; 
or  that  there  will  be  found  a  better  religion  in  the  pew,  than  is 
inculcated  from  the  pulpit. 

My  last  objection,  then,  to  the  new  theory  is,  that  it  tends  to 
fill  the  church  with  a  superficial  and  false  religion.  It  is  readily 
admitted  that  the  religion  in  view  is  often  splendid,  active  and 
imposing.  But  what  does  it  do  for  the  heart '^  What  triumph 
does  it  achieve  over  its  depraved  and  hateful  propensities  ? 

It  does  but  skin  and  film  the  ulcerous  place, 
While  rank  infection,  mining  all  within. 
Infects  unseen. 

I  would  by  no  means  overlook  the  exuberant  goodness  of 
God  to  his  American  churches.  1  doubt  not  that  He  has  gath- 
ered into  them,  of  recent  time,  great  numbers  who  shine  as  lights 
in  the  world,  and  who  will  shine  with  the  lustre  of  stars  in  other 
worlds.     But  are  there  not  sad  mixtures  ?    Is  not  the  gold  in 


45 

many,  many  instances,  become  dim  ?  Is  there  not,  in  many 
Christian  professors,  an  evident  want  of  a  deep,  pervading,  con- 
trolling spirit  of  piety  ?  Are  they  not  grossly  deficient  in  the 
lovely  virtues  of  spirituality,  humility,  meekness  and  mutual 
love  ?  Is  there  not  within  the  church,  a  spirit  of  ambition,  pride, 
vanity  and  worldliness,  which  threatens  to  consume  the  very 
vitals  of  religion  ?  Are  not  many  professors,  instead  of  stemming 
the  torrent  of  fashionable  frivolity  and  dissipation,  too  evidently 
carried  away  with  it  ? 

I  have  no  pleasure  in  thus  lifting  the  veil.  Indeed,  I  have  ex- 
pressed nothing  not  too  well  known  before.  The  animadver- 
sions uttered  are  but  the  echo  of  the  language  of  thousands.  It 
remains  to  inquire  :  IMay  not  the  evils  in  view  be  traced,  in  part 
at  least,  to  an  altered  style  of  public  religious  instruction  ?  May 
not  the  depressed  standard  of  living  be  traced,  in  part,  to  a  de- 
pressed standard  of  preaching  ?  It  is  a  grand  Christian  maxim, 
that  the  truth,  and  the  truth  alone,  sanctifies.  Nor  is  any  fact 
better  ascertained,  than  that  wherever  the  gospel  is  in  any  meas- 
ure adulterated,  it  loses  just  so  much  of  its  power  to  purify  indi- 
viduals, and  to  purify  the  community.  Especially,  if,  as  I  think 
has  been  shown,  the  system  in  view  fails  to  strike  an  effectual 
and  fatal  blow  at  the  root  of  human  pride,  the  defect  is  radical ; 
is  vital.  Human  corruption,  strong  in  its  intrenchments,  will 
deride  and  defeat  every  attempt  to  expel  it  from  the  citadel  of 
the  heart. — But  the  subject  is  too  painful  to  be  pursued  ;  and 
here  I  leave  it. 

I  cannot,  however,  conclude,  without  adverting  to  one  point 
in  your  Essay,  which  has  not  yet  been  touched.  You  seem  to 
apprehend  that  the  great  evil  in  the  church,  at  this  day,  is  an 
intolerance  of  error  ;  an  extreme  sensitiveness  to  every  depart- 
ure from  truth.  But  others  are  of  a  difiierent  opinion.  They 
think  that  a  "  wide-spread  and  increasing  indifference  to  sound 
doctrine  is  the  present  great  sin  of  the  Christian  church."  And 
you  yourself,  I  think,  will  not  be  backward  to  admit  that  "  there 
can  be  no  surer  sign  of  degeneracy  than  the  peaceable  progress 
of  error.''''  For  myself,  I  have  no  disposition  to  defend  any  ar- 
bitrary methods  of  suppressing  heresy.  It  is  the  truth  which, 
in  this  case,  is  the  sufferer.  Yet  if  there  is  not,  in  this  age,  an 
unusual  and  alarming  insensibility  to  the  progress  of  error,  and 
to  the  duty  of  opposing  it ;  if  many  Christians  have  not  too  much 
forgotten  their  obligation  to  "  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints,"  then  am  I  utterly  unacquainted  with  the 
signs  of  the  times. 


46 

Suffer  me  to  add,  that  to  me  it  appears  not  only  unjust,  but 
preposterous,  that  those  should  be  stigmatized  with  the  odious 
character  oiheligerents.  who  are  acting  purely  on  the  defensive, 
and  simply  wishing  to  maintain  what  they  believe,  and  what  the 
church  has  ever  believed,  the  grand  and  vital  truths  of  the  gos- 
pel ;  and  that  those  should  claim  to  be  the  exclusive  friends  of 
j)eace,  who  are  directing  against  these  precious  doctrines,  an 
incessant  and  uncompromising  hostility. 

Tn  view  of  the  existing  state  of  things,  it  is  impossible  adequate- 
ly to  describe  the  importance  of  our  Theological  Seminaries. 
From  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  they  must  possess  and  wield 
an  immense  power,  either  for  good  or  for  evil.  While  they  are 
faithful  to  God,  and  to  his  truth,  the  church  will  not  fail  to 
cherish  them  as  her  choicest  hope,  her  richest,  dearest  treasure. 
But  what  if  they  should  prove  recreant  to  their  high  destination  ? 
What  if  the  streams  which  issue  periodically  from  these  foun- 
tains, should  become  impure  and  polluting  ?  Alas,  words  can- 
not paint  the  bitter  disappointment,  the  deep-felt  grief,  the  dis- 
astrous, wide-spread,  and  almost  interminable  evils  which  must 
ensue. 

I  have  thus,  my  dear  Sir,  given  utterance  to  some  of  the 
many  thoughts  occasioned  by  the  perusal  of  your  Essay  on  Sin. 
If  these  letters  are  pervaded  by  a  style  of  plainness  and  freedom 
which  may  seem  not  quite  congenial  to  your  character  and  sta- 
tion, my  apology  must  be  found  in  the  deeply  interesting  nature 
of  the  subject,  and  the  imperious  demands  of  truth.  Nor  has  it 
escaped  me,  that  I  address  one  who  obviously  holds  the  freest 
expression  of  thoughts  and  feelings  to  be  no  crime.  Never  did 
I  more  sincerely  deprecate  a  beligerent  spirit  in  the  church, 
than  at  the  present  moment.  Never  did  I  cherish  a  more  ar- 
dent desire  to  live  in  peace  with  all  who  love  the  Redeemer  and 
his  cause.  But  peace  itself,  if  purchased  at  the  expense  of 
essential  truth,  is  too  dearly  bought. 

Humbly  commending  what  I  have  written  to  your  candor, 
and  that  of  the  Christian  public,  and  above  all,  to  the  patronage 
and  blessing  of  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  I  subscribe 
myself. 

Very  affectionately  and  sincerely,  your  friend  and  brother, 

DANIEL  DANA, 

Mwhuri/port,  August  20,  1839. 

The  Rev.  Professor  Stuart. 


